Lets say Kim Kardasian found a bag of unlimited money, and decided she wanted to be President of the USA by 2020, what would the best path for her to take and how much would each stage cost her?
I know Ronald Reagan was a celebrity before he became a politician, but that was a long time ago, and her gender might bring challenges and opportunities.
How much does a lobotomy cost? Multiply by 300,000,000 and maybe apply a bulk-rate discount.
It would cost our very souls.
Who’s she running against? If it’s Sarah Palin, she could do it on a shoestring.
Seriously? Your time-table is too aggressive. She’d have to build up some kind of credibility first – governor of a state or a term or two in Congress. That takes years as well as money.
If you wanted to do it by 2020, you’d have to resort to actually bribing the electorate, which is not only illegal, but would be prohibitively expensive. Let’s assume it was legal. It would still be economically disastrous, as that amount of cash flooding the system would lead to inflation. Sure, for a few million dollars, I’d probably vote for her (because I could always move to Tahiti if things went to hell locally), but everyone else would also be millionaires. If you want them to go to work in the morning, you have to raise prices on everything.
You might argue that the price of some people’s vote would be considerably lower and it’s true that some would vote for her just out of amusement. And history does show that some people will vote for any pretty person with loose enough morals. But realistically, she won’t get the Republican vote because, hey, sex tape. And she won’t get the Democratic nod because no party likes to be a world-wide laughingstock.
So, really, the only plausible scenario is one in which aliens land and offer the secrets of immortality and free energy in exchange for electing Kim President. So … how much does a radio telescope and a broadcast tower cost?
There is a limit to what money can do. Money can sway close elections, but I’m fairly confident that there is no legal amount of expenditure that can make that vapid, empty, silly bitch into someone more than 20% of the US populace would throw the lever for.*
*20% of the US populace are complete whackjobs.
Now, getting more than 20% of the vote as the Vice-Presidential candidate…
How much did cost to make Schwarzenegger governor?
Just the souls of Californians.
She could always declare her body a public utility.
Ah, the body politic!
She’d have to fuck a lot of straight men and gay women, and pay the rest at least $10 million each. I dunno how much that would be (gotta throw in a lot of money for lube too).
Okay, I should ask how much and how long would it take?
Pfft. I’m going to be contrarian here. Our souls are burnt out. Mitt Romney? John Edwards? Herman Cain? Extraordinary rendition? Drone attacks? Police killing black citizens all over the country?
No, forget all that serious informed electorate jive, we’re in a madhouse and desperate for change. If she wanted the job, which I’m sure she doesn’t really, she could run as an independent in 2016 (she turns 35 before then), and win out of the sheer despair of the populace. Anything but what we’ve got.
But wait, you say, isn’t that surrendering to the madness?
Sure. But it’s a different madness from the same old worn-out parties, their bases rallied only to be betrayed, their reasons for existing long-forgotten.
Money is a necessary but not sufficient lever in American elections. I don’t think any conceivable amount would get her elected through legitimate means.
The reactions to this thread have completely changed my mind. It’s clear now. If kardashian can’t get elected even given unlimited financial resources, then money must have no effect on elections and any restrictions on campaign spending are nonsensical. It’s just so obvious!
In an attempt to give a serious answer, I’ll go with the closest historical comparison: Ross Perot’s 1992 presidential campaign. Like Kardasian, Perot was a non-politician running outside of the two big parties. According to reports, Perot spend $12,300,000 of his own money in his campaign. That’s the equivalent of $19,700,000.00 in 2012 dollars.
And of course, Perot lost. He received 18.9% of the popular vote in the election. Leaving aside the Electoral College, let’s say Kardasian needs to get 33.4% of the popular vote to win (with Obama and Romney each getting 33.3%). Assuming there’s a direct relationship between money spent and votes received, Kardasian would need to increase her spending by an additional 76.7% to raise her vote share the needed 14.5%. That works out to $34,810,000.
Note: all figures should be taken with a bag of salt.
Romney and Obama are each going to raise about $1 billion this time around. She’d need at least that much.
Yes, but it’s not their money. I was comparing a hypothetical Kardasian campaign to the historical Perot campaign in terms of how a wealthy person could use their own money to place themselves as a credible presidential candidate. But nobody can become president single-handed. All you can do is put yourself into a position where other people take up your cause and support you with their money and their votes. Without those, your chance of becoming president is zero.
I don’t see where she would get any significant donated money, so she’d have to come up with the $1 Billion herself.
She should make a gargantuan political donation to get a lesser cabinet post like transportation or education and then arrange for 15 or so tragic “accidents”.