Now that both parties have concluded they can’t make it on public election funds, and that it will take a half billion on each side to get this next election done, do you think someone like Ross Perot, or some ketchup heiress, or some dying billionaire with a grudge, could pour money in and “buy” the election? For themselves or their favorite?
Not if the person is unelectable. Money certainly helps, but it is not the most important thing. The only way I could see this happening is if said billionaire started off small, like running for congress, then ran for president. That’s in addition to having charisma, and mainstream ideas. Ross Perot isn’t the only person with near unlimited resources to run for office, and usually, it does not work out well.
Perot tried and failed.
Stephen Levitt did a piece in his book Freakanomics about the link between campaign finance spending and electability. His claim was the correlation went the other way around, highly electable politicans get more money poured into them and that money alone had very little power to influence electability, a few percentage points at most.
So if that’s true then no, it would be very hard to buy your way to an election.
I assume you mean in America. The answer (assuming this is correct) is of course…not a hope in hell. If a billionaire COULD do it, one WOULD have done it already. Though several have tried (Perot and Forbes off the top of my head) none have come close to succeeding. Which in a way is unfortunate…because they almost couldn’t do a worse job than the politician class we generally get served up…
-XT
Money does not buy elections. You could have the wealth of Bill Gates but if your political platform is popular with only 3% of the population, you’ll get no votes. Money merely helps politicians get their message out. If the message is crap, then no one will vote for them.
I think the best way to buy an election in the US would be if you had a huge budget surplus and offered to give it back in the form of income tax refunds. That would get people to vote for you in hopes that they would receive such a tax refund.
Thank God no one has been cynical enough to try that yet.
Renob speaks for me.
A similar thread: Bill Gates for President - One Million Dollars to Every Person in America - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board
Here’s that test: Could Bill Gates get elected prez?
Joe Kennedy put a few bucks behind JFK …
I think it is possible. I’m still under the impression that the incumbant won the Republican nomination by being able to bury his opponents under tons of money (tho’ not his own). He sure as heck didn’t get the nomination on the basis of apparent ability.
I think that there is a possibility that an election or two down the road, Michael Bloomberg, current Mayor of New York and #44 on the Forbes 400 List with a $5.3 Billion net worth might run for President.
He’s a Republican, though as a social liberal he is outside the mainstream of the national party (and being Jewish probably would limit his appeal to some). He is widely considered to have been quite successful as Mayor, and was reelected with a 20% margin despite the City’s predominant Democratic political leaning. He is term limited at the end of 2009.
If he were to throw his hat in the ring, his personal fortune would make him a formidable opponent, notwithstanding his other political gifts. If the Republican party fractures into fiscal conservative and social conservative wings, I could see him being a standard-bearer of the fiscal movement who would have significant crossover appeal to Democrats.
I doubt that even with his billions of dollars, he could buy the election outright, but given his background, skills and appeal, if he decides to run (whether as a Republican, Democrat or independent) he would be a formidable centrist Political candidate.
Yeah, but Bloomberg running for president and using his fortune to help him along won’t mean squat without “his other political gifts”, as you put it. He’s also campaigned and held elective office before.
He wouldn’t be buying the election.
George Bush didn’t buy the election, he was supported early because he was percieved by the Republican establishment (at the time) as a likeable, easygoing popular governor with a good moderate record and crossover appeal from a large state, and built in name recognition. They desperately wanted to annoint a candidate early to avoid a bruising primary season that would leave a battered and broke candidate. His family fortune wasn’t that important, what was important was that all the party fatcats get behind one guy early.
Is no one familiar with George Soros and his efforts in 2004?
I guess I don’t understand exactly what “buying the election” means. If you’re asking, could a total unknown spend a billion dollars, start his campaign two years before election day, and get elected, I would say no. But if we have two candidates with similar “electability probability” (the calculation of this number is left to some political scientist), and one of them has a billion dollars of private money that he can and will spend, and the other has no private fortune, I have no doubt that the billionaire would win.
I wonder if someone with a limitless amount of money (and a weak enough moral fibre) could bribe enough presidential electors into voting for him/her to be elected president. There’s only 538 of them, so you need 270 in order to have a majority. How much money would that require?
OK, of course, even if it were possible, the American people would never stand by this and you’d be unseated by a coup d’état pretty soon (and the Electoral College would be abolished), but still, I’m curious.
You wouldn’t need a coup d’etat, even if we assume that we’re bound by whatever decision the electors produce. Congress can simply impeach the putative president-elect before he assumes office.
What about pouring your billions into negative advertising until you trashed your opponents’ reputations so completely that you became the “last man standing,” despite your initial unpopularity?
I’m gonna guess that a bribery attempt of this magnitude is bound to leak to someone who still cares about the process, and is willing to make noise about it…
They can?