Democrats are buying this election

Dan Thomasson:

If you live in one of those so-called presidential battleground states, chances are about the only political sound you hear regularly is Sen. Barack Obama telling of his childhood love of America or of his plans to sort out the mess with the economy and revolutionize health care, or delivering a half-dozen other different messages mainly knocking Sen. John McCain who seems almost stricken by laryngitis.

It isn't that Mr. McCain has lost his voice. It's just that Mr. Obama's has effectively drowned it out.

The reason for this is money, semi-trailers full of it for Mr. Obama from private donors that have created a huge imbalance in the spending ability of the two campaigns for the presidency. While Mr. McCain managed to regain some of that voice with a decent showing in the final debate, his ability to sustain his message has been overwhelmed by the Democratic nominee, who has launched the most massive television advertising drive in political history.

In many areas Mr. Obama's commercials saturate the market, outnumbering Mr. McCain's by at least 8-1 and leaving viewers with the impression there really is only one candidate in this race. This city's broadcast stations are a good example. Because they reach vote-heavy Northern Virginia, a key battleground area, the Obama ads roll out almost endlessly during prime-time viewing hours, day after day.

Now it should be clear to even the most politically naive just why the Illinois lawmaker decided to opt out of public financing despite an early pledge not to, a fact Mr. McCain effectively pointed out in the final debate. While Mr. McCain has had to settle for the public system ceiling of $84 million and help from the Republican National Committee, which can advertise in his behalf, Mr. Obama collected a startling $150 million in September alone and $67 million in the previous month. He has raised a whopping $600 million plus so far.

The donations, big and small, have so deluged the Democratic candidate's financial machinery that those counting it obviously have little idea where it actually came from and probably don't care much. Of course, this leaves an impression of impropriety and even creates concerns wholesale fraud could be involved. The outclassed Republicans contend just that, citing phony donors and unexplained credit card charges as examples.

Confusing the problem is the fact that anyone who donates less than $200 does not have to be identified under Federal Election Commission rules, a huge loophole in accountability. Because tens of thousands of Obama donations allegedly fall under that amount, it will be difficult to track the sources of donations.

Is this gigantic disparity in funds healthy? Clearly not and it was just for that reason public financing was instituted, to bring some sanity back into the cost of campaigning for president and to make sure from that standpoint at least the playing field was level. Mr. Obama's decision not to accept the policy on grounds it was distorted by contributions from groups outside federal control was so much hooey.

The likely result is that his enormous success with private fund-raising will lead to more candidates doing the same in the future, completely undercutting the public financing concept.

...

With the Democrats winning there will be no vote on restraining spending as long as they are getting the big bucks. Republicans are going to have to make the case that Democrats are the party of the rich as well as the party of the labor bosses. We will have to make the case against the evils of liberalism using what resources we have. Right now that appears to be a few blogs and conservative talk radio. It will be up to us to amplify the failings of a liberal Democrat Congress and probably a liberal Democrat administration.

technorati tags:
political news | news | world news
More at: News 2 Cromley