I may not be the most politically informed, but I wasn't entirely sure candidates could do this. I thought campaigns were funded solely by donors. Apparently not. Furthermore, I wasn't aware the the Clintons were multi-millionaires of such stature, although that doesn't really surprise me. Still, it makes me wonder where Clinton actually got the money. At her news conference this afternoon, Clinton stated "I loaned the campaign $5 million from my money. That's where I got the money..." So what's happening with the money from the donors? Are they expected to loan the money back to her? That seems a little underhanded.
Still, I'm not here to bash Hilary - I suppose if she's really got $5 million lying around she can do with it what she pleases. I find all of this interesting in light of the recent democratic obsession with this idea of "change." Change the country, change the war, change the dominant political party, if that's all it really means... They want change. But from what I see, racing to have the most expensive campaign isn't really helping America socially, or enacting any sort of change at all.
We're looking at an economic recession, yet politicians decide to throw $5 million into their own campaigns - and then consider more? I'm hearing a lot of rhetoric regarding change and not really seeing much to back it up. Obama has stirring speeches and the backing of America's youth, and Hilary consistently addresses the nation's issues and offers promises for change, but I'm just not seeing a lot of in it action. Perhaps I would be more swayed if I saw such immense sums of money going somewhere more useful than Hilary's campaign - which should already be funded.
As a political moderate, I'd like hear something come out of the Democrats' mouths besides "Change, change, change." Like I said, I may not be the most informed, but the fact that I've only heard the same argument has to mean something. Yes, this is America, yes, we like change. But if I'm going to cast my vote on the hope of change, I want to see some evidence of it first. It's easy to say you're going to do something - the actual doing is a whole different matter entirely.
1 comment:
I don't think it's illegal to finance your own campaign. That's how Ross Perot could be a viable third party candidate back whenever he ran. It's less of a problem in terms of influence than if some rich businessman gave her five million, right?
I also agree with your criticism of the overuse of empty "god" terms like "change." They don't really promise anything specific. But it sure does sound good, doean't it?
Post a Comment