Democratic candidates spending big money

Inflated expenditures continue to set the election on a pace that would render it the most expensive campaign cycle in U.S. history. This time of year, discussions regarding 100-million-dollar payrolls are usually in reference to big-market Major League Baseball clubs. But months before the Democratic and Republican conventions, the amount spent on ads, travel and staffing has already exceeded the quarter-trillion dollar mark.

Consider Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton the political equivalent of Yankees-Red Sox rivalry. Both spend exorbitant sums of money, but sustain that pace thanks to effective fund-raising measures. Through January alone, www.opensecrets.com reports that Obama and Clinton, who have spent $113 million and $105 million, respectively, have spent twice as much as Republican nominee John McCain, according to Associated Press delegate estimates. Those totals do not include February figures which are due March 20.

The astronomical figures also don't factor this week's vital contests in Ohio and Texas into the spending binge by both Democratic heavyweights in. Clinton needed victories to stave off Obama's momentum after a string of successful showings. Clinton raised an additional $32 million for the two races, which normally stands as an impressive figure. Yet that amount is downright low-budget compared to the $50 million Obama compiled for the key two races.

Like baseball, outspending doesn't equal wins. It only provides greater opportunity for success. In a distressing trend, candidates in the modern political climate need to be able to put up campaign contributions that stretch into the nine-figure categories. Unfortunately for the American public, no amount of donations can prevent recherche monologues and bickering over trivial matters during debates or stump speeches. Regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, the candidate will likely surpass John Kerry's $328 million expenditure-level posted in 2004. President George W. Bush set a world record by spending $367 million-over $100 million more than Ireland's GDP-on his successful re-election push. While the United States continues to spiral into a recession, robust fundraising tactics are turning the race for the country's most important office into a glorified shopping spree.

There's nothing in the current political climate that suggests the trend will subside in 2012, 2016 or even into the next few decades. Provisions exist to curtail the issue, such as the government offering federal, matching funds during the primaries. This provides candidates with government money with the stipulation that the candidates adhere to mandated spending limits.

Obama and Clinton both turned down those matching funds for obvious reasons. Accepting matching funds means neither candidate can work to build a spending advantage. Clinton, with her savvy political team behind her, enjoyed the initial advantage of built-in big-ticket donors that was cultivated during Bill Clinton's administration.

Obama, who has won 11 primary elections, continues to employ his message of hope and the string of victories to galvanize donors. His campaign continues to enjoy an influx of support and money, part of the reason the Illinois Senator also declined the matching funds offer.

Ironically, both will likely finish the primary circuit spending comparable amounts to each other. The final bill will continue to escalate, meaning both could have enjoyed the same exposure level without spending their own money if they merely accepted the matching funds.

There is some hope of a reprieve if both Obama and McCain capture their party's nomination this summer. Both have said they would be open to taking the matching-funds option for the general election. Lately, Obama has backed off from a definitive statement on the issue, keeping open the possibility that the egregious spending levels will hit new highs in what polls suggest would be a tight contest.

"Senator John McCain has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge," Obama said. "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

McCain declined the government funds for the primaries, which would have capped his spending to $54 million. He still claims he will continue the trend of accepting federal money for the general election and put pressure on Obama with public comments to follow suit. Should both accept, Obama and McCain would each be eligible for about $85 million.

That figure is provided by the American public via a $3 checkoff on IRS tax return forms. Considering that three bucks a year can possibly stop a billion-dollar campaign in the future, it is a smart investment for the ordinary U.S. citizen to prevent the highest office from going to the highest bidder.

According to The Boston Globe, no major-party candidate rejected public funds for the general election since the system was put in place in the 1970s after the Watergate scandal. Obama sounds like he will go for the deal. If he continues to rake in money at his current clip, that sentiment could change in the coming months.

"I made the commitment to the American people that if I were the nominee of my party, I would accept public financing," McCain said at a stop in Oshkosh, Wis. two weeks ago. "I expect Senator Obama to keep his word to the American people as well. This is all about a commitment that we made to the American people.

"I am going to keep my commitment," he said. "The American people have every reason to expect him to keep his commitment."

Common sense and fair campaigning should be the commitment the Republican and Democratic nominees make to each other and to the American people. Arguments about payroll advantages are best left to sports fans, anyway.

Brian Bohl is a senior print journalism student. You may e-mail him at bbohl1@pride.hofstra.edu.