Not just the Obama admin, but any that manages to get elected. You can't even hope to win a modern election without billions in funding from corporate or wealthy private interests. Even Obama's small-donor-oriented political machine raised roughly half its campaign funding from the former.
I wonder what would happen if some super-wealthy retired philanthropist (think Bill Gates, minus the MS monopoly tarnish) donated $1B to a promising Presidential candidate, with very few strings attached. Maybe we'll just end up with another assassinated President...
I don't think we would have an assassination... but I must admit I am so cynical that one would not terribly surprise me.
However, by no means would just the president be enough. You have to keep in mind both the house and the senate are just as much in the pocket of lobbyist as the white house, in fact probably more so. And the president alone can declare war, grant pardons, and not much else.
Also, we have to remember that a lot of Obama's funding, especially early on, came from true grass roots, and was in small units which added up big time. So he's as close to a people's candidate as we've had in a LOOONG time. And yet, even he black, constitutional scholar, the most charismatic public speaker in ~ 40 years, even he is succumbing to our cynical political realities.
If he is not a transformative president who could ever be?
Oh I know he passed health care, but how is more spending radically different from the Medicare drug benefit, or any of the other ways both Republicans and Democrats have grown the size of government over the years?
I think $1B is enough to tip the scales for the right candidate, but if everyone knew one candidate was being propped up by a billionaire it would immediately backfire.
| I wonder what would happen if some super-wealthy retired philanthropist (think Bill Gates, minus the MS monopoly tarnish) donated $1B to a promising Presidential candidate, with very few strings attached.
I wonder what would happen if some super-wealthy retired philanthropic billionaire with a sense of noblesse oblige decided to donate a vast sum to one extra-special Presidential candidate and if only that billionaire had no ulterior motive.
She only proved that you can't buy an election if you're outrageously blatant about it and a terrible candidate on top of that.
Most congresspeople spend more time raising money (banging the phones, attending fundraisers, etc) than they do on policy. You need a few million in the bank to be a "credible candidate", and lobbyists can get you a chunk of the way there.
I think she would have won if Brown weren't running -- in the end, he had a proven track record doing exactly the kind of reconstruction that California needs right now, and that trumped her money.
I'm not local and didn't have a great view of it. From what I heard, she was on the air so early and so obnoxiously often that it destroyed whatever message she may have had (and the message was lousy/stale/reactive, too). I think that loses to generic dem in California, but again I'm not local and don't really have the pulse there.
If you do the 'good/bad' candidate, 'buys/doesn't buy' the election grid then a system that prevents bad candidates from buying elections would seem to be sufficient. All the other results are tolerable / unavoidable.
