Drudge links to this piece in the Financial Times about spending on the 2006 election cycle. Some might have a knee-jerk reaction to this, saying that somehow it represents too much money in politics.
Like many folks, I believe that money is speech. And, when that much money is spent, you know that most of it is going to communications of some sort. I think that's great, and is a measure of the importance and national interest in the election.
Of course it's messy, it's ugly, it is self-interested and thoroughly American. But I have to wonder: is it enough?
To put it in perspective, have a look at other things Americans spend money on each year:
Salty snacks: $22b (here)
Pet food: $14.5b (here)
Video games: $10.5b (here)
Sandwich spreads: $3b (here)
By contrast, we as a country spend $2.6b every two years to elect the leaders of the free world. That's about $9 per American, over a two year period, or $4.50 a year. If you spent less than that on lunch today, it's on me.
Now, part of me understands that the reason that politicians spend to be elected is that they expect the spoils -- power, more money -- to be worth the investment. And on that level, it's a sad state of affairs.
But the larger picture is one of a free market of ideas. The alternative to this sort of free spending is a government that controls it. As such, the government effectively decides what can be said about government.
That's great for incumbents, but not for change.
I will recommend not to hold off until you get enough amount of money to order all you need! You can take the credit loans or just commercial loan and feel fine
Posted by: RoxieMOSLEY | 21 July 2010 at 08:19 PM