Politics can be as addictive as playing the lottery and your chances of a payout about the same which makes giving money to a presidential candidate a bit like having a teenager in the house. Until they sense that you're maxed out then they want MORE MORE MORE.
Yesterday, thousands of folks, including moi, recieved this email from David Plouffe, Barack Obama's campaign manager:
"The Clinton campaign just announced that Hillary and Bill Clinton injected $5 million of their personal fortune into her campaign a few days ago.
To date, more than 650,000 people like you have taken ownership of this campaign, giving whatever they can afford.
The Clinton infusion of $5 million -- and there are reports it could end up being as much as $20 million -- will give them huge resources for the next set of primaries and caucuses.
We have raised more than $3 million since the polls closed on February 5th. But we have no choice -- we must match their $5 million right now. We're going to do it the right way, with small donations from people like you. It's never been more urgent that you make a donation of $100 right now."
To begin with, public service is intended to be just that, public, so it's not exactly clear how a single income family on a government salary can amass enough money to loan themselves $5 million. Let's assume that speaking enagements for Bill have been very lucrative in the years since he left office and I belive they have been but for the purposes of this argument, if his appearance fee was a hefty 20K, then 250 speaking engagments would be needed to generate that amount. He's been out of office for 8 years, so it's very possible that he's made a lot of money. Using the same estimate, 20 Mil, would be 1000 speaking engagements. I'm not suggesting that the Clinton's have been doing things illegally, it's just that I don't believe one should be profiting from the Office of the Presidency. Unless it is to help THE PEOPLE - witness Jimmy Carter.
Back to the sales pitch, the premise of which is that because HRC infused her campaign with 5 mil, then we have to raise our own $5 to match. Granted, it would be a strong statement if the Obama campaign could say, hey look we didn't have to reach into our own meager pockets, we asked thousands of everyday folks to contribute $100 and that's the difference between the two campaigns. However, this pitch is just days after it was announced that Obama has raised 32 million in January, a record for any candidate.
My point is this. If you feel compelled enough by a candidate to financially support their candidancy, that's great. Give money. But beware the ever sell. It's easy to fall into the excitement of these campaigns, who knows how many young folks, having never given to a political campaign are now serving up their entire income tax refunds to candidates as the excitment builds. Political races are expensive, but so is life.
I do believe in giving. And giving enough so that you have to make sacrifices about what you can do in your own life. We did make a small contribution to the O campaign and we also instituted our own economic stimulus package.
However, any future donations during the primary season will instead go to a local charity, not-for-profit, or be used to support a working artist by buying some of their work. These demographics have a very difficult time sustaining work in the first place, but in hard times and election years it becomes even more difficult. Investment in your local community is much more likely to positively impact your quality of life than whoever ends up in the Big House.