The Myth of Money's Influence in Political Elections - Prof. M. Richardson, Papers of Grammar and Composition

Download The Myth of Money's Influence in Political Elections - Prof. M. Richardson and more Papers Grammar and Composition in PDF only on Docsity! English 104 5 November 2008 Money Cannot Buy Everything: A Position On A Claim In this country, we elect our leaders for local, state, and national offices. That is one of the reasons why America is so great. We have freedoms that other nations do not. We elect those in power of making public policies that we must abide by, and if we don’t like what a candidate stands for, we have the choice to vote for another candidate. This is the system America has used to avoid corruption and potential failure. Throughout America’s history, money has gained somewhat of a reputation overtime as the “deciding factor in political elections.” This reputation has given birth to many false claims that benefit those with a lot of money by scaring away any potential candidates that do not have the sufficient enough funds to match them. In Freakonomics, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner state that because the stereotypes regarding this issue, one can only conclude, “Of all the truisms about politics, one is held to be truer than the rest: money buys elections”(Levitt & Dubner 7). In the expanded and revised edition of Freakonomics published in 2006, Levitt and Dubner claim that in running for political office “money hardly matters at all” (Levitt & Dubner 9) in being victorious in the election and evidence shows that it is in fact only a fraction of what it takes to win. In the end, the candidate, what he or she stands for, and how they spend their money are the deciding factors. With, “nearly 9 in 10 citizens believing that good people are discouraged from seeking office because of the high costs of campaigns”(Weeks 1), many potentially great leaders do not take the first step. Though money is in fact not the only factor in winning an election, the public believes so and there lies the first problem. The 2 nation cannot think this way or be frightened to run for office because of money’s exaggerated importance or influence. The public education systems, as well as the political science departments, need to make sure that this stereotype it fixed, so the politicians with deep pockets do not trick the youth of our nation from running against them. The illusion many citizens believe at this point is the simple idea that “whoever can spend more money on a campaign will draw more votes, thus will win the election.” This close-minded way of thinking is not always accurate. In 2002, Tony Sanchez outspent Governor Rick Perry almost three to one but in the end, lost the election for Texas governor. From the beginning, Sanchez was fighting an uphill battle due to Perry having the incumbency advantage. Rick Perry spent $28 million (73 percent on TV ads) in successfully defending his place in office, while Sanchez spent $67 million trying to defeat him (Kraemer, Et. Al 146-148). Therefore, if money didn’t buy Perry the votes, then what did? Rick Perry was the present Governor of Texas at the time of this election and held the incumbent advantage. George W. Bush appointed Perry in 2000 because of his resignation in hopes to become President, which he later was successful in doing. This fact alone shows that Perry has the experience in office to be successful and was trusted by a United States President. The years he held in office alone worked as advertisement in his favor. Having already gained the state’s trust by his actions as Governor gave him an edge that money cannot buy. Sanchez, on the other hand, was busy building and maintaining a multibillion-dollar company in Texas and had no political experience whatsoever. If this wasn’t enough evidence to sway voters away from Sanchez, maybe his history was. In the late 1980’s, one of Sanchez’s banks was 5 Talk radio on the right of the election and National Public Radio on the left discuss politics all day, every day. And the Internet, particularly YouTube, gives politicians a way to get out their spots and their message without paying for airtime” (Morris par. 10). The money that a candidate spends on additional ads or airtime is only a fraction of what the public hears and is nowhere near worth the millions of dollars spent for these to be run. With debates and the media discussing the race all day everyday, the candidate’s true personality and plan really comes out no matter how many ads they run to show the public otherwise. It is not the amount of money in the bank account that swings the political vote one-way or the other. In the end, it is, and always will be, the candidates themselves and their decisions in campaigning that win the votes needed to ensure their victory. Work Cited 6 Christopher Cooper and Laura Meckler. "Obama Takes in a Record $150 Million, But McCain Narrows Gap in Some Polls. " Wall Street Journal [New York, N.Y.] 20 Oct. 2008, Eastern edition: A.1. ABI/INFORM Global. ProQuest. Evans Library, College Station, TX. 23 Oct. 2008 <http://www.proquest.com.ezproxy.tamu.edu:2048/> Kraemer R., Newell C., and Prindle D., Texas Politics: Tenth Edition CA: Cengage Learning, 2008. Levitt, Steven D., and Stephen J. Dubner, Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores The Hidden Side Of Everything. New York: Harper Collins, 2006. Levitt, Steven D. "Using Repeat Challengers to Estimate the Effect of Campaign Spending on Election Outcomes in the US House." The Journal of Political Economy 120 (2006): 777-89. Morris, Dick. "Money is Losing its Mojo." Politics (Campaigns & Elections) Feb. 2008: 50+. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Evans Library, College Station, TX. 22 Oct. 2008 <http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.tamu.edu:2048/login.aspx? direct=true&db=a9h&AN=31422930&site=ehost-live>. Weeks, Daniel. "Does Money Buy Election?" Does Money Buy Elections? (2008): 1-12.