Money and Votes

by Kendall O’Connor

It has long been known that money equals votes and there is no other country that shows this quite like America.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Michael Bloomberg and Barack Obama are classic examples of the fact that money can wield power and influence when it comes to polling time.

With President Obama planning to spend approximately one billion dollars on his 2012 campaign, this indicates that electoral spending shows no sign of decreasing.

But is all this extreme spending really worth it in the end?

It is highly likely that Arnie, Bloomberg and Obama would have succeeded in their campaigns if they spent a fraction amount of the money they had.

It is just as plausible that the personality traits we saw in speeches, interviews, public meetings and debates gave them the advantage over their opponents.

A study conducted by acclaimed economist Stephen Levitt shows two interesting facts.

First, that no matter how much money a highly unpopular candidate raises, they will inevitably still lose.

Secondly, front-runners can still win by spending less, and even if they have accumulated a significant amount of wealth for the campaign, they only use it when threatened by another candidate.

Looking back at the 2010 mid term elections, businesswoman Meg Whitman spent a record amount of her own personal wealth ($163 million) to gain a republican seat in the state of California.

However, she lost to Democrat Jerry Brown, who spent less than half of what Whitman spent. Approximately $25 million was utilised to support his campaign, while over $31 million was contributed by independent groups.

Furthermore, there is now the gift of social media and other networking platforms. This allows politicians to have their views presented at a minimal cost to a large audience, particularly among the younger voters.

At the end of the day, it is the personality of a candidate that wins the election, and this is something that money cannot buy.