CE Week #6: “Romney putting personal millions into campaign”
|
Jim Kuhnhenn
Associated Press
October 6, 2007
WASHINGTON – Mitt Romney once said financing his own campaign would be a “nightmare.” Writing checks, he said this week, is “painful.” It doesn’t seem to be stopping him.
Romney is his presidential campaign’s most generous supporter, lending $17.5 million from his personal fortune so far. His Republican rivals are bracing themselves for him to do it again. And again.
Romney is hardly the first presidential candidate to cut himself a check – Steve Forbes and Ross Perot spent far more than he has. But the businessman-turned-politician, who can raise money AND open his wallet, may have the best chance to win the presidency.
The former Massachusetts governor has two more shots at testing what his money can do to supplement his campaign’s finances and help him win the GOP nomination. The first is during the 90 days left before the early presidential contests of Iowa and New Hampshire. If he survives those, he can spend again in the last weeks of January before the make-or-break primaries in Florida, New York, California and New Jersey.
“The Romney strategy is very clear: win Iowa, get a bounce to New Hampshire, win New Hampshire and write yourself a check for the Feb. 5 states and start advertising,” said Tony Fabrizio, a Republican strategist who has worked on presidential campaigns but is unaffiliated this election.
If Romney writes himself a sizable check in January, his spending might be evident, but the size of his contribution would not be a public record until mid-February, well after the nomination is likely to be sewn up. That could protect Romney from voters who would object to a candidate “buying” the nomination.
But Jennifer Steen, a political scientist at Boston College who has written extensively on self-financed candidates, believes the public doesn’t care if a wealthy candidate writes his campaign checks.
“What I’ve noticed is that it has been terribly frustrating for opponents of self-financers that their own outrage at self-financing is not shared by the voters,” Steen said
Compared with candidates like Forbes and Perot, Romney is a piker. Perot pumped $63 million into his failed 1992 presidential contest. Forbes contributed about $38 million in each of his unsuccessful White House bids, in 1996 and 2000.
Unlike those millionaires, Romney entered the presidential race with a political pedigree.
He had run for the Senate against Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and had been elected governor of Massachusetts in 2002.
Overall, Romney has receipts of about $62 million, with $45 million raised from about 100,000 donors this year. That means he has dipped into his pocket for 28 percent of his total.
This year, Romney’s personal contributions have been increasing as his fundraising has been declining. In the first quarter, he lent his campaign $2 million. In the next three months, he put in $6.85 million. This summer, he contributed $8.5 million. Meanwhile, his donations dropped from $21 million in the first three months to $10 million this past quarter.
Advisers say he is prepared to give to his campaign as long as it seems reasonable he can win.
Romney faces no great personal risk in supporting his candidacy. His assets are estimated at between $190 million and $250 million – or, as he has described it, “a bloomin’ fortune.”
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://pkautzman.edublogs.org/2007/10/06/ce-week-6-romney-putting-personal-millions-into-campaign/trackback/
Money does not always win an election. It’s helpful, but not imperative. The article shows the failures of Forbes, Perot, and even for governor, Folisano. Wealth is great, but I believe it creates a wide separation of the people from the candidate. Romney has a lot of money so how can he relate to the poor and middle class? It truly creates a gap between Romney and the electors. Sure he can run more political campaign ads, and buy more tv time, but how does that relate him to the American people? Now, this does not have anything to do with money, but I don’t think Romney will get that much support overall. He’s from Massachusetts, but he calls himself a republican. If anyone really follows politics they know that liberals always come out of Massachusetts. How conservative can he be? We know he is on social issues like abortion, and gay marriage, but how does he stand economically, and politically? I can’t tell you, but just because he is from Massachusetts raises red flags for me. Besides that he is Mormon. Conservatives are usually Christian, and most Christians believe that Mormonism is a cult. People are all too optimistic about Romney. Money won’t buy him the republican nomination.
Mitt Romney is not just another one of those millionaires like Forbes and Perot. He has contributed a lot of his money to his campaign, but is a front-runner in it. A presidential race in the primaries is not all about policies and who wants what to happen. It also has a lot to do with money. Money gets you the support from the people and for the media. Who ever is on T.V. more will be heard more. That is why I think Hilary is winning in the polls right now. It is about running the competitor out of business, which almost happened to McCain. Romney also has a better political background. He ran for the Senate against Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and had been elected governor of Massachusetts in 2002. Unlike Edwards who lost in the primary in 2004 and Thomas Golisano who lost in the run for governor of New York in 2002.
Romney is no the first person to sign himself off. After all our country was based off the well fed, bred, read. They didn’t get their money from donations it was all self supported. We are entering anew generation where donations wont be enough to get to the end. He still if he wins the primaries has to have money to run for president. Having to contribute money to your own campaign is sort of a bad thing. It shows that he doesn’t have enough money to run. This is not good this early
I have to disagree with Megan. I think that money can buy an election. Now I’m not saying that if I had about $200 million dollars, like Romney does, I could go win an election. Obviously you need opinions and public support, but if you don’t have the financial support I don’t think that you can actually get anywhere. As for the question about whether the fact that he has money is going to prevent him from understanding the lower and middle classes. Honestly now do we think that any President has been able to understand these classes just because of the fact that he has had the same income as them? No. All Presidents assets are estimated at probably around the same net worth. No President is some poor guy from the hicks. I don’t think that you need to have the same amount of money to relate to someone. Also the money is not just for personal gain (well in a way). A lot of the cost for a campaign goes to signs, media coverage and their “entourage.” One of the biggest ways for a candidate to have a chance at winning their elections and getting the support of the public is to be well known, and the best way to do that is through the media. It’s the easiest way to reach the majority of our population. So to the fact that money doesn’t buy an election…well it may not buy you the nomination but without it, you don’t have a chance at wining.
What should be done about Social Security? That is the big question that everyone is asking, and the question that no one has the answer for. Should we increase the amount that is being paid currently or make people paying into the system pay more money? This is a tough question. On one hand we know that social security is going down the drain, that is it will dry up in thirty forty years. That is unavoidable. What do we do about it? We can’t just pull the plug because people currently depend on that money to live on. The money they are due because they have paid into the system for so long. The only thing is that if young people start to pay into the system then their money will go to the people who are receiving checks now, and the young people won’t get the money that they paid into the system. I think that they should just let the system run and while it runs out we should try and figure out a better system that will give people the money that they put into the system. What that something will happen to be I have no idea, but it better come quick.
Well Mitt Romney sure had dedicated alot of time an money into his campaign there is not question about that. I kinda have two sides to how I feel about the whole issue of campaing money. I think its great when a candidate is serious enough about there own campaign that they will spend a huge portion of there money to help them get elected. But I also feel that money shouldn’t be able to buy a presidency. I still like to be conventional and think that any person who is smart and wise enough could be president. However, I know thats not true because thats just the way things are these days. Also on that side of the topic I think that way to much money is spent in campains now a days. I think like Kautzman brought up in class that our government should pay for the candidates to have time slots to say what they got to say. I think that could help to cut cost. Basicly I just think the money could be put to better use like feeding people in Africa. But once again I will switch sides and say that I think that the system works when citizens give money to the candidates because not that shows that public opinion favors them and then they can spend that money to further there campaign. All in all its a hard thing to support one way or another.