| 摘要 | The first example of this phenomenon was John Connally, the Texas governor and former Nixon staffer who tried to buy the 1980 Republican nomination for president with the then-fantastic sum of $12 million. The cash netted him one delegate. The most obvious example of this phenomenon was Ross Perot’s White House bid in 1992. Fabulously wealthy, Perot spent $60 million of his own money attempting to win the presidency. While that sum alone was comparable to the total cash spent by the Clinton and Bush campaigns, Perot garnered just 19% of the vote.
Steve Forbes spent $40 million in each cycle seeking the Republican presidential nomination in 1996 and 2000. His money won him a combined two states and two convention delegates. Democrat James Humphreys in 2000 and 2002 tried to take one of West Virginia’s congressional seats, spending $6 million on his first try, $8 million on his second. While barely losing in his first campaign, he was trounced by 20 points in the second. Finally, the 2006 election had its share of aspirants who lost their contests, if not their shirts. Michigan’s Republican gubernatorial nominee, Dick DeVos, spent a whopping $35 million in a failed attempt to unseat the state’s governor (Gray, Kathleen. 2006. “Tab for governor’s race is $56 million.” Detroit Free Press, 8 December, A5), while in Connecticut, Democrat Ned Lamont lost to incumbent senator Joe Lieberman despite spending $17 million. As opensecrets.org notes, only one of thirty serious self-financers won an election in 2004.
Big spenders lose for a variety of reasons. As Boston College professor Jennifer Steen notes, candidates who fundraise traditionally build not only their war chest, but also critical links between themselves and voters. Writing one’s own checks does not have the same effect. Political scientist Brad Alexander argues that self-financers typically lack media savvy. And both Steen and Alexander agree that self-financed candidates typically lack the public service credentials needed to sell themselves persuasively.
The one thing that does not hurt rich candidates, however, is the spending itself. Despite the conventional wisdom to the contrary, the public does not penalize candidates for spending their own money. In a March 2007 Gallup and USA Today survey, only 22% of respondents favored a publicly financed election system. In a 2000 Gallup survey, 54% of respondents stated they were more worried about special interests influencing a candidate with their funds, while only 30% stated they were more worried about a wealthy candidate buying an election. In a 2002 Pew survey, 58% of respondents agreed that accusing a rich candidate of trying to buy an election was an unfair criticism. 37% thought it was a fair criticism. And in a 1999 NBC News and Wall Street Journal poll, just 13% of respondents said that limiting the amount of personal money candidates could spend on their campaigns was the most important reform required in campaign finance. This put the measure fourth on the poll’s list of eight hypothetical reforms, behind limiting total money candidates can spend during elections, providing public funding of elections, and eliminating contribution limits.
Wealthy candidates have even turned their independence from democratic pressure into an asset. Jon Corzine, with his $65 million Senate campaign’s “unbought and unbossed” mantra, projected the idea that rich candidates are above special interests and can tackle real issues. Consequently, these issues often take a populist cast—ironic, given the fantastic wealth of their purveyors.
Recent Senate hopeful Ned Lamont is an archetypal example. The Exeter-schooled silver spooner withdrew his membership to a Greenwich country club in the months leading up to the election, saying it was “too white and too rich.” His campaign commercials contained endless images of Hurricane Katrina victims, ramshackle rural homes, and closed industrial parks. He asserted, almost laughably, that he is a “small business guy,” despite a personal fortune estimated at $200 million, and explained that he was a Democrat “because we believe that power starts with the people…we don’t start at the top.” The disingenuousness is startling. In the rich, but not of the rich, seems to be the underlying psychology.
Nonetheless, as the record demonstrates, voters see through the gilded smokescreen. First, Americans simply do not care where candidates get their money from. And in instances when candidates try to pass themselves off as Robin Hoods rather than robber barons, the public eschews them. Thus, while the media fusses about buying elections, we the people ought not to. Elections are too expensive, even for the deepest pockets. |
