The following information was accumulated from a newspaper article, a television trailer to a news program and the internet. It is not my intent to try to sell newspapers, but this all started from the article reported in the national section of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, Saturday, Jan. 2, 2016. That article initiated the curiosity about campaign finance reporting by the two leading Democratic presidential candidates for 2015. What followed would not have been gleaned for this article had I not read the newspaper for other purposes.
The real issue is not how much money the two Democratic candidates raised, but where the money comes from. We, as potential voters, allow our freedom of choice to be limited to the best fundraisers because we don't actively get involved in the selection process with our personal contributions of time and money. One million dollars doesn't go very far in a national political campaign where numbers of tens of millions are required. However, one million dollars divided by$25 equals the amount raised by 40,000 individual people willing to give $25 to one candidate. But, as the numbers that follow demonstrate, the wealthy do contribute to the campaign's treasure chest as well as the PAC (Political Action Committee) devoted to the specific candidate. We are being sold a list of choices made up of individuals who have the best campaign committees and the necessary connections to those with enormous financial resources.
The newspaper's article reported that the Hillary Clinton campaign raised $112 million in the calendar year 2015. That works out to $9.33 million dollars per month for the entire year. If we use the $25 per person number for a theoretical figure it would require 373,200 individual donations to reach that number. However, the maximum allowable donation for an individual is supposed to be $2,700. If we divide the monthly total by $2,700, it would require only 3,456 givers to attain the $9.33 million figure. I don't know one person able to give that kind of contribution but many wealthy families with four children are able to give six times that amount by a gift of $2,700 for each parent and the same amount for each of their four children. That makes the family contribution $16,200 and the children don't even need to be of voting age. You can get to a million dollars a lot quicker with contributors like that. Taking those simple numbers into account think what the very, very, wealthy and the corporations they control, can do.
As a side note, the Clinton campaign actually raised $37 million for her campaign in the last three months 0f 2015 and raised an additional $18 million for the Democratic National Committee. This just further proves politics is a very high stakes game -- not intended for the average guy on the street. The Clinton campaign is not only leading in the polls, but in the fund raising race as well. A coincidence ? Hardly !
Bernie Sanders, actually an Independent political party senator from Vermont, who is second in the polls behind Clinton, is not surprisingly, second in fund raising.
From another source, it was reported that the Sanders campaign raised $33 million in the fourth quarter, bringing his total to $73 million for 2015. The Sanders campaign strategy is to obtain small donations from a much larger number of potential voters. The contributors must really believe in the integrity of the individual for this to work. The expectation for that strategy is that the small donation is coming with a much greater likelihood of the giver actually voting -- and the votes, not the dollars, actually count in the final analyze.
As a self-described independent, I am much more likely to support Sanders than Clinton because my faith is in the person, not the political party and/or fundraising. We will learn a lot when the Iowa voters indicate a preference for both Republican and Democratic candidates at their caucuses very soon.
I'm sure my Republican friends would cringe at the very thought of my requesting a Democrat ballot for any election. However, Bernie Sanders appears to be a strong truly independent legislator who might shake up the Washington establishment if elected. There is no way Hillary Clinton won't follow the same pattern she has exhibited in her previous political activities. And, I am tired of the old "business as usual" theme exhibited by both Republican and Democratic parties.
Wouldn't a change be refreshing ?
•••
Editor's note: Leo Lynch is an award-winning columnist. He is a native of Benton County has deep roots in northwest Arkansas. A retired industrial engineer, he is a former Justice of the Peace and can be contacted at [email protected].
Editorial on 01/06/2016