Barrett Rainey's Second Thoughts

Some of my more conservative friends – and even a nut or two with whom I have friendly relations – will likely take offense at the musings herein. I know they will because they have before. And I’m sorry when they do. But their knee-jerk criticism is always the same: “Well, what about Obama?”

When I’ve taken a verbal swing – or even the slightest shove – critical of some Republican, one or the other of ‘em comes up with that challenge. Not as a question that must be answered. No, it’s more a defensive reflex in lieu of thinking through what has been said. Or written. Like this.

A writer for CNN Money analyzed what four of the Republican presidential candidates have spent on their campaigns up to March 1st. The numbers are startling, thought-provoking and a source of my renewed anger directed toward the U.S. Supreme Court and its terrible decision resulting in unlimited and anonymous corporate campaign contributions.

To March 1st , the Romney campaign and its PAC partner had spent $76.6 million. Not only is that an all-time record, it’s more than the Gingrich, Santorum and Paul campaigns. Combined!

And what did Mr. Romney get for that obscene amount of money? He got 4.1 million votes and 607 delegates. Put in shocking perspective, that’s $18.50 per vote and $126,000 per convention delegate! Those numbers – at least to me – are mind-blowers.

In comparison, the Gingrich campaign spent $10 per vote and $150,000 per delegate won; Santorum spent about $6.50 per vote and $71,000 per delegate; Paul $32.50 per vote and $485,500 per delegate.

In an effort to keep my friends well-informed, I sent several of them the original story, hoping they’d not only be enlightened about the cancerous effects of that SCOTUS decision but also alarmed at the amount of money being wasted which could go to other, far more purposeful needs. Boy, was I disappointed in the next few minutes.

Boom. Boom. Boom. Three emails hit my desk. “Well,” they asked, “What about Obama?” “What’s it costing us for Air Force One and all his entourage?” “Why should the taxpayers foot that bill?” What I thought would be an eye–opener for them turned out to be yet another reflexive effort to drag the President of The United States – a Democrat – into a story where he wasn’t even mentioned.

Before getting to the original subject of outrageous spending, we’ll divert a moment to take care of the faux angst. Many years ago – many presidents ago – the feds and the two major political parties established an agreement. When the president – any president – is campaigning, direct costs of the trip will be billed by the government – the Federal Election Commission – and reimbursed by the campaigns. In fact, passenger travel costs are reimbursed at first class rates!

The Secret Service determines how the president will travel and what sort of security and equipment are necessary for the president, staff and others in the entourage. Presidents have nothing to say about it. Because a president is always a president, a certain amount of expense is always official. But if he flies from the White House to Chicago to campaign for example, a formula exists to bill his campaign treasurer for that portion of travel deemed electioneering – by the F-E-C. He doesn’t decide; the party doesn’t decide. The federal agency decides. Always.

Now, back to the outrageous amounts of money spent so far. When SCOTUS granted corporations all the rights of citizenship as individuals – the Citizen’s United decision – that allowed them to make unlimited campaign contributions. The floodgates opened. Using so-called “independent political action committees” (IPACs) as vehicles, any corporation – or foreign country – could funnel unlimited amounts of money to candidates. The “independent” requirement was all but ignored as former staff members of candidates lined up to run the “independent” PACs.

Many lobbyists use a line: “Best government money can buy.” That’s now been expanded to absurdity by our Supreme Court.

At the risk of sounding like a Pollyanna to my conservative friends, I think wiser heads in both major political parties are seeing the corrosive fallout of that decision and it wouldn’t surprise me if the next congress came up with some ways to either rein in the deluge of bucks or challenge the decision some other way.

On the other hand, new legal challenges may come from the private sector – with or without the blessings of the two major parties. As these campaigns wallow in greenbacks, more people are seeing the terrible effects of what has been wrought. Santorum and Gingrich, for example. Thanks to having a billionaire in his pocket, each was able to defy loses at the polls and continue stretching out failed candidacies to an end that was apparent – and which should have come – months ago.

Finally, to my very conservative friends, I still love you. But my every challenge to something Republican does not deserve a swift “What about Obama?” Come up with a G-O-P candidate for president who’s got some ideas – some valid proposals – a vision – a plan for how he’d govern and a history of steady, well-chosen positions on major subjects and I’ll say something nice about him.

Maybe 2016?

Share on Facebook Both comments and pings are currently closed.