Are presidential hopefuls Obama and Edwards hurting their campaigns with their statements?
Posted on November 5, 2007
In a campaign season littered with rhetoric calling for innovations, fresh commitments to democratic responsiveness and a different way of doing business in Washington, we find ourselves on the eve of an election year in which the political jockeying for primary votes and campaign donations seems much like business as usual.
A recent Washington Post-ABC News Poll found that almost three-fourths of Americans—Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike—believe the country is headed down the wrong track. Concerns about mismanagement of the war in Iraq, the domestic economy and federal disaster relief efforts have led many citizens to believe that a broken system is to blame for these inefficiencies.
Sen. Barack Obama has focused on such government inadequacies as a reason for drastic change within the political system. This has been his rallying call aimed at discontented Americans from all walks of life. In recent months he has placed a large amount of blame for what he calls a “broken system” on the efforts of lobbyists and special interest groups on Capitol Hill. Presidential candidate John Edwards shares these sentiments and both candidates have refused to accept donations from federal lobbyist organizations.
Technically both candidates have been true to their word by not accepting money from registered federal lobbyists (Sen. Clinton has made no such promises). However, The Washington Post’s Michael Dobbs points out that neither candidate has refused donations from the large organizations that often employ such lobbyists. Dobbs showed both candidates to have taken large amounts of money from law firms, equity firms, hedge fund groups and even pharmaceutical companies.
The question begs to be asked: are Obama and Edwards really playing a different game with a different goal in mind, or are they simply putting the right spin on their efforts to reach the White House in order to gain popularity with the public?
In all likelihood we won’t know the answer unless one or both candidates make it to the White House. Yet even Sen. Obama himself has said he knows the system in which he is operating is flawed but that the difference between him and the other candidates is that he wants to change that system in order to make government more responsive to average Americans.
To be fair, even if a particular candidate was genuine in his or her intentions with regard to campaign finance reform, they would still have to play the game in order to change the game. But then we must begin to wonder just what kind of game they are playing. Political analysts and pundits assess the on-going campaigns for the White House in terms of who has more money in their “war chest” and who expects to gain more in the months to come.
Supreme Court decisions have declared that money is essentially tied to free speech. Nevertheless, in an age when a modern media campaign requires enormous amounts of money, we are left in a situation in which those with the ability to fund such campaigns are in far better positions of influence than the average working citizen. Such a system is by its very nature elitist.
I firmly believe that Sen. Obama is genuine in his desire to change the system in Washington and make it more accountable to average Americans. I also believe such change will never occur without some form of public financing for elections. Obama has begun the process by saying the things no other serious presidential contender before him has had the nerve to say. Now we must wait and see if America is ready to demand such changes not just of our executive leaders but of our congressional leaders as well.
Patrick Callahan is a senior political science major.
About Us | Supplements | Advertising | Contact Us
Website design by Erik Pitzer ('07)
