Renee RosenowUsually when presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain are highlighted, the focus is placed on the nominees’ differences. It’s war hero versus inexperienced junior senator, black versus white and “Change” versus “Country first.”
But what about the candidates’ similarities? Backing away from the glitzy campaign slogans and ads, it becomes clearer how the two candidates are similar – their corporate donors that contribute enormous amounts of money to each candidate in order to ensure their ideals are well represented by the next president. And the sources are not as diverse as you might think.
It raises this question – does it really matter who you vote for in this election? Will your single vote ring clearly through the boom of bundled campaign contributions?
Casually, it would appear that McCain is in favor of domestic drilling and Obama supports alternative energy sources. It classically positions the two candidates on opposite sides of an issue, when it really isn’t that simple.
According to Matt Taibi, a Rolling Stone political correspondent, investment bank Goldman Sachs has donated more money to the Obama campaign than any other employer. The same Obama-friendly investment bank eventually purchased British Petroleum Exchange and opened windows for Americans to trade with, Taibi wrote. Obama was conveniently absent from the voting for the Stop Excessive Speculation Act, that hoped to curb excessive oil speculation, Taibi went on to say.
Now, I understand that Rolling Stone is a liberally based magazine that has made clear which candidate they endorse, and it’s important to take one correspondent’s opinions with a grain of salt, but it does open up a window to an issue that is not commonly in the public eye. Obama’s camp has been so vocal about the individual contributions from small donors, thanks in part to his online presence, but this appears to be a clear case where corporate interest outshined his populist stance.
McCain has strong ties to telecommunications companies, and has reaped the financial benefits from those companies, eventually leading to his change of stance on illegal wiretapping done by those companies on George W. Bush’s behalf. Obama even removed his pledge to filibuster the immunity bill for these companies after finding out that AT&T was sponsoring the Democratic Natioinal Convention, Taibi said.
The reason the two candidates can raise so much money from corporate donors without much restriction is because those who donate are able to ‘bundle’ fundraising contributions that are donated to the candidate’s political party. The money eventually ends up being spent on the campaign, but doesn’t directly end up in the candidates’ pockets.
In an article written this summer for the New York Times, both John McCain and Barack Obama were said to be lagging in naming the ‘bundlers’ that were raking in the campaign cash. The Chicago Sun Times and the New York Times both requested McCain and Obama to update their list of contributors who bundle campaign contributions of more than $50,000, and after the requests many names were hurriedly added to their Web site list of donors.
We could all probably agree that this is the way today’s world works – corporations and contributors who donate a bulk of money to political campaigns and administrations have closer ties to the candidates than an average citizens does. On the local level, if I wanted a policy change in Eau Claire, surely, a letter to Rep. Ron Kind would be better received if a generous check were sealed in the envelope, no matter how benevolent his last name may be.
It is easy to idealize our favorite political candidate. We would like to believe that Barack Obama is infallible and John McCain has the experience needed to face national security crises – that neither candidate would ever lead us astray or break a single promise. Unfortunately, money is power and politics are expensive.
Taintor is a junior print journalism major and editorial editor of The Spectator.
