Can a Presidential Candidate Buy Your Vote?

Running for president of the United States has evolved into an industry. The amount of money raised and spent has exploded over the last 30 years. Where does all this money come from and why are candidates spending billions of dollars for a job that pays only $400,000 plus expenses a year? Who really profits in this new industry and can a candidate really buy your vote?

It seems the election process has become an elitist one. Our very first present, George Washington, was asked to take the position, persuaded in fact. He really wanted nothing to do with it. He served two terms and then refused a third. There certainly wasn't a budget for presidential elections. Washington didn't even have enough money for an inauguration, borrowing it against his large land holdings.

There are many more perks to being president today than there were in Washington's day. In addition to salary and expense accounts, both the U.S. president and vice president are given free housing with plenty of amenities. The White House has 132 rooms, 32 bathrooms, a movie theater, bowling alley, billiards room, tennis court, jogging track and putting greens. The president also has use of Camp David.

The presidential candidates of 2008 have already raised over a billion dollars. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, contributions to political candidates have increased by more than 500% over the last 30 years, reaching over $1 billion so far in 2008. Spending has also increased incredibly over 2,000%. In 1976 total spending by presidential candidates totaled $66.9 million. To date, spending has topped the billion dollar mark as well.

The rapid growth in spending and contributions led to campaign reform that included the Public Financing System. According to the Hoover Institution, once a candidate becomes the nominee for a major party, he or she becomes eligible for a public grant. To receive these funds, the candidate must agree to spend no more than the grant received and must not accept private contributions. Originally, John McCain had declared that he would accept public funds however, once it become apparent he was the republican nominee, his campaign began returning donations.

Candidates do not have to accept public funds in either election, primary or general and if they don't, they are free to spend as much of their own money in support of their campaigns as they wish. So, a candidate not using public funding has no per state spending limit or overall spending limit in the primary campaign as well as no spending limit in the general election campaign.

The current democratic nominee, Barack Obama is the most successful presidential fundraiser ever. He has no problem bringing in money and has relied on small online donors and bigger donors nearly equally. Obama declined to use the public financing system and has become the first major-party candidate since the system was created to decline taxpayers' money for the general election. His exceptional fundraising ability is probably why he would opt out of a system that limits donations and expenditures.

Because John McCain originally accepted public financing for the general election, he had to spend all of his primary money before his party's convention in September. According to a report in the New York Times, McCain spent freely before the convention, outspending Obama on television advertising three to one. Following the conventions, McCain was set to receive $84.1 million in public money as well as $110 million from the Republican committee.

Running a presidential campaign is like running a small business. There are administrative expenses, campaign expenses, media expenses, fundraising expenses, and other expenses. The 2008 election cycle, based on Federal Election Commission data released on August 28, 2008, currently reports the following presidential expenses: administrative $434 million, media $359 million, campaign $154 million, fundraising $92 million, contribution $34 million, and other expenses of $25 million. Running for president has developed into an industry. But who profits?

It seems media profits the most as it claims the biggest piece of the expense pie followed by administrative staff to include consultants.

As with any industry, presidential campaigns can be monitored. Information about contributions, spending as well as donor demographics and sources of funds are readily available on the Internet. Voters have more information available to them today than at any other time in history. The information is revealing. According to the Federal Election Commission, 80% of McCain's contributions come from individuals, compared to 94% of Obama's.

Approximately 121,069,054 people voted in the 2004 election. If the same numbers vote in the 2008 election with donations at about $1 billion by November that would mean each vote would cost the candidates $8.26. That's not really a lot of money if you think about it.

So, why would someone spend billions of dollars for a job that pays $400,000 a year? Because, that's what it takes to reach each and every voter in the United States. It's true the media seems to profit the most, but as with any industry, especially one as mobile as a presidential campaign, millions of dollars do enter the local economies of communities all over the country. But truly, would it make a difference which candidate you voted for if one of them gave you $8.26?