Political wisdom floating around is that incumbent candidates for Congress are in trouble this year. Other than the retiring politicians, over 90% of the members of Congress will return to their seats despite their low favorability ratings. (link) But money changes everything, that and lack of candidate choice in our two party system.
The California Republican candidates for Senator and Governor in 2010 prove that only wealthy people hould run for election, and the candidates with the most money deserve to win. Because capitalism is the greatest economic system ever, we should not bar any part of our society from capitalism’s tentacles. We do, after all, live in a Buyocracy where you must buy political office to get elected.
Money won big last night in California. It greatly helped Meg Whitman win the GOP nomination for governor and gave Carly Fiorina the Republican nod to run against Democratic U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer in the November general elections.
Whitman admits to, and is proud of, the fact that she has spent more than $70 million of her own fortune to secure the nomination and is, she says, prepared to spend up to $125 million to get the actual job.
And Meg Whitman is worth a reported billion dollars. Being a billionaire is enough of a resume to prove she deserves to be Governor. With a few million dollars worth of well-placed misleading attack adds against Former Governor Moonbeam Brown, she has a real chance of buying residence in the governor’s mansion. And that will be a victory for big money I will celebrate with new oil contracts off of the Santa Barbara coast.
And don’t worry too much about Mr. Brown. The reason he had no opposition in the Democratic primary is that he had amassed $20 million for his campaign before anyone even entered the race. He has spent little thus far, but he might lose because Whitman who spent $71 million of her own money on the primary is willing to spend $80 million to buy office. After turning EBay into a multibillion dollar enterprise, bidding to get what she wants is second nature to her.
Her promotional brochure reads like a glossy version of People Magazine: lots of super photos, little detail on her plans. Look at the pretty pictures and platitudes here.
What are Meg Whitman’s solutions to create jobs? Tax cuts of course. There would be no capital gains taxes under Whitman, and she cites all the states that have a huge debt crisis such as Arizona, who don’t have a capital gains tax. See how fiscally sound she is?
There would be no license fees for businesses under Whiteman, and the budget shortfall will be closed. Tax incentives for hiring will be doled out so that if jobs are created, the workers will have to bear the brunt of the taxes for the state and not the benevolent corporations. Yea Whitman!
Of course, where would any self respecting Republican be if they didn’t pledge NO NEW REGULATIONS! My favorite idea of hers is…”Harmonize Regulatory Authority”. In essence that means no new regulations unless it doesn’t hurt the bottom line for business. Who cares if the regulation would protect people, like food safety, offshore oil drilling regulations, workplace safety, seatbelt laws, and so forth.
And please, let’s have tort reform, because them damn lawyers are to blame for everything the liberals haven’t done yet. Whitman, as I call her, for she likes to be called Meg, promises to secure the border, improve education, reduce crime and improve the universities. Specifically, she is against any kind of amnesty for immigrants. Hear that Latinos? And, she would put $1 billion dollars into the UC system to study EBay.
Thus, Tex Shelters, Billionaire supports her. I can’t wait to buy that new yacht from the tax cuts she gives Tex Shelters Offshore, LLC in California. I am sure I will hire another pool boy for my mansion in Coranado Island. Pool boys do SO please my wife.
In Colorado, Democratic Senator Michael Bennet had raised $7.7 million for his Senate primary against upstart Andrew Romanoff who only had $1.96 million at his disposal. Never mind the supposed anti-incumbent sentiment in the elections, money wins out again.
I have heard people say that “there is an anti-incumbent sentiment” since Newt Gingrich’s Republican revolution. However, incumbents almost always win, and candidates with the most money, usually the incumbents, win. So much for the anti-incumbent feeling. The chances of the opposition is a myth propagated by the mainstream media to sell that idea that elections are fair and to drums up rating. A news hour starting with “most incumbents have a huge lead in campaign money and are expected to win again this year” won’t do much for your ratings.
In Colorado, the Senate elections proved that big money wins and small money doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. Let the little people go back to doing the little things and leave the elections for the well off.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, only 10 percent of Bennet’s donations came from people giving $200 or less; Romanoff, on the other hand, raised 62 percent of his funds from small donors. (link)
Bennet will out spend his Republican opponent and easily retake his Senate seat. Hey, Bennet promises that Republicans are scarier that Democrats and that should get out all the Bolder, Co libtards to put him over the top and back into the Senate.
On the other side of the nation in Connecticut, Worldwide Wrestling mogul Linda McMahon won the endorsement of the Republican party for Senate and only had to spend $22 million of her own dollars to get less than half the vote in a three way race. Shocking, isn’t it, only $22 million to get 58,206 votes, 49% of the Republican vote. That’s $378 a vote. I am sure they voted for her based on her crotch kicking policy.
And according to Politics Daily “McMahon plans to spend another $30 million on negative TV commercials designed to convince the voters that Blumenthal is not the public official he seems to be.” That is a winning formula, unless Demoncrat Blumenthal uses his ill-gotten money from unions and the DNC (as opposed to the hard earned wrestling money) to body slam the poor lady. So what if McMahon has nothing positive to contribute. It’s Blumenthal that is the evil Triple H in this real world (?) grudge match for Senate. (link)
In Minnesota, the top spender in the Democratic primary for Governor did not win the nomination. Matt Entenza spent $5 million of his own money and came in third while Mark Dayton won the contest after spending $3.3 million of his money for the campaign. (link) It was not reported how much Mr. Dayton spent from other sources for the primary victory. The exact figure is not important. What is important is that you have to be a millionaire to be a governor in the United States. And as we know, millionaires are the best people on earth, other than billionaires, so they should be allowed to buy office. Besides, the unemployed would just waste those millions on food.
The charts below show the enormous financial advantage enjoyed by incumbents. That’s one of the reasons re-election rates are so high—incumbents generally don’t have to work as hard to get their name and message out.
|Type of Candidate||Total Raised||Number
|Type of Candidate||Total Raised||Number
Based on data released by the FEC on August 10, 2010. Figures include all candidates who have filed reports.
As the tables demonstrate, incumbents far out pace their challengers for campaign donations. And, those that raise more money consistently win more than 90% of their house races and won between 70 and 90% of the Senate seats depending on the year.
Continuing a trend seen election cycle after election cycle, the biggest spender was victorious in 397 of 426 decided House races and 30 of 32 settled Senate races. On Election Day 2006, top spenders won 94 percent of House races and 73 percent of Senate races. In 2004, 98 percent of House seats went to the biggest spender, as did 88 percent of Senate seats.
“The 2008 election will go down in U.S. history as an election of firsts, but this was far from the first time that money was overwhelmingly victorious on Election Day,” Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, said. “The best-funded candidates won nine out of 10 contests, and all but a few members of Congress will be returning to Washington.”
Reelection Rates Over the Years
Few things in life are more predictable than the chances of an incumbent member of the U.S. House of Representatives winning reelection. With wide name recognition, and usually an insurmountable advantage in campaign cash, House incumbents typically have little trouble holding onto their seats—as this chart shows.
While Washington pundits go on and on about the year of the challenger and how incumbents better fear for their seats, the reality is that most seats only change hands when an incumbent retires. Unless the challenger is a multimillionaire like Carly Fiorina in California, most challengers don’t have a chance. And I wouldn’t bet against Barbara Boxer just yet. I am sure she has millions of her own donations from millionaires saved up for her Senate campaign.
Take this headline form ABC News online :
Poll: Ahead of 2010 Midterm Elections, Incumbent Support Its Lowest Since 1994
Now, reference the charts above. In 1994, 90% of the House was reelected and 92% of the Senate. What does that low poll rating in 1994 mean when it does nothing to change outcomes? This year, like every year in the last 56 years, incumbents will win a vast majority of their seats.
Action: Write letters to Congress asking for real campaign finance reform today and the Disclosure Act. Or you can write them and tell them that you are glad that only real Americans, millionaires and billionaires, can run for office with any chance of winning. And tell them how happy you are that each year the average American has less and less say over who runs our nation.
Congressional switchboard 800-828-0498
Just ask for the office of your Senator or Representative
Write Your Representative at:
House of Representatives
Find your Congressperson here: