The Campaign 2008 Money Race: Glorious or Grotesque?

Both Democratic and Republican candidates for the 2008 White House race are reporting record-smashing fundraising totals for the first three months of 2007. And most report it with the undisguised glee of pillagers who've just plundered unimagined new riches.

But is the first multi-billion dollar presidential campaign really something glorious to crow about? Or is the U.S. spectacle of lawful influence-peddling in exchange for political support tawdry and grotesque?

Is it a mockery of democracy and equal representation for all Americans? Is it the official death of the American dream that every boy or girl can realistically dream of growing up to be President of the United States?

Parsing the 2008 Money Race Results
The "big picture" results for January to March 2007, for 2008 presidential frontrunners are:

* Hillary Clinton (D) - $26 million
* Barack Obama (D) - $25 million
* Mitt Romney (R) - $23 million
* Rudy Guiliani (R) - $15 million
* John Edwards (D) - $14 million
* John McCain (R) - $12.5 million

I know the arguments. The 2008 system is what it is, and to compete, the candidates have no choice but to dive in with gusto or lose. And that's valid... to a point. I say "valid to a point" because candidates admittedly have little choice but to accumulate as much campaign moolah as possible.

BUT... there's much a candidate can do to offset the impact of selling influence and access, and to diligently attempt to include everyday Americans... teachers, truck drivers, bank tellers, stay-at-home parents, store clerks, accountants, church workers, and the like... in the process.

For instance, candidates can refuse to take from money from all Political Action Committees (PACs), thus giving favoritism to none. Candidates can invest in building internet sites and in on-the-ground campaigns to foster access by everyone. And candidates can make every donor, not just those with deep pockets, feel like an important part of the campaign.

The result would still include the inevitable corporate and party-bigwig donors. But it would also include, and celebrate, a higher quantity of donors. And it would necessarily exclude excessive gloating over the whole Big Bucks aspect of the race for the Almighty Dollar. It would be first about ideas, not riches.

About Barack Obama's Campaign Results
I wrote recently that a reader observed that I seem to lean towards Barack Obama in 2008, and I do.

I have unanswered questions about Sen. Obama... especially about his plan for universal health care... but at this date, Obama seems to me the best candidate to be elected President on November 4, 2008.

One reason for my attraction to Sen. Obama's campaign is that, to my knowledge, he is the only 2008 candidate actively working to offset the impact of selling access to large donors, and to diligently include and value everyday Americans in the process.

Obama's campaign has taken no PAC money, and none from "federal lobbyists." (Truthfully, I'm not sure if that means he took funds from state lobbyists.)

And Obama's city-by-city, state-by-state stump schedule always includes no-charge public rallies and get-togethers... on school baseball fields, in libraries, in endless numbers of peoples' homes.

And Obama's 2008 website has invested heavily in networking technology designed to allow involvement by everyone... not just big-deal bloggers and big-time donors.

And as a result, the Obama 2008 campaign reported in an email to supporters today:

"In less than three months, a staggering 100,000 Americans have contributed to our cause -- tens of thousands more than the number reported by any other campaign. That's on top of the hundreds of thousands who have attended rallies, started groups and shared their ideas and energy...

What makes this achievement even more noteworthy is that we did it without taking any money from PACs or federal lobbyists. Instead, we're counting on you; on folks across America who want to take their country back and steer us to a better course...

... we know that every step of our progress happens one person at a time... one donor owning a piece of this campaign for as little as $5."

THAT innate sense of fairness, and that demonstrated respect for the democratic principle of equal opportunity for all, sets Barack Obama apart from the other 2008 frontrunners, in my opinion.

Is Barack Obama the Perfect Candidate?
Is Obama tainted, like all other candidates, by the astronomical sums they need to raise to mount effective national campaigns? YES.

Is Obama the perfect presidential candidate? First, remember... he's a politician. They all have their limitations. Second, there are neither perfect candidates nor perfect people. Third, I have a lot left to learn about his stances on certain issues. So, NO, Barack Obama is not a perfect candidate.

But Obama's noble, and shrewd, effort to mitigate the undemocratic aspects of the requisite single-minded pursuit of the fattest campaign treasure chest... sets him apart from the crowd. And a tad above the greedy fray.

Still, when I think about the multi-billions that will be spent on campaign 2008, it breaks my heart. Think how much good could be accomplished with that money... for veterans, for schools, for Americans without health insurance.

I vote that this frantic race for sacred Big Campaign Bucks is grotesque, not glorious. How do you vote?

Related Reading
Barack Obama in 2008 Info Center at About.com Liberal Politics
Obama on Universal Health Care - Will He Anger Liberals?
Sen. Barack Obama: The Lessons of the Iraq War
Barack Obama's Inspiring 2004 Democratic Convention Speech
Salt Lake City Tribune, April 3, 2007: Tracking the Money Primary
New York Times, April 5, 2007: Running for Dollars