Who is the positive candidate of this election cycle? Senator Obama has claimed himself the winner of this contest. In fact in a mailer he states that basically all of Senator McCain's material is negative while only 34 percent of his is. However, the truth is both candidates spend almost the same on negative advertising and thats according to CNN. Many Democrats quickly point out, that can't be true because Senator Obama is running positive ads right now. Well, that point is also true. So what's going on in the world of campaign spending? The fact is over the past week Senator Obama has outspent Senator McCain over 2:1. John McCain spent $9.2 million (most of it negative just because the nature of the race now) and Senator Obama spending $21.5 million (about half of that being negative). So, all and all Senator Obama is just as negative as Senator McCain.
Point 1: Barack Obama cannot claim that he is any more positive than John McCain because he is spending just as much as him on negative ads he just has the benefit of spending more money because of the reversal of his promise to accept public financing.
The bigger point that I want to make with this entry is that I find it troubling that a candidate can outspend another 2:1 in a presidential election. A system was put into place to make sure the candidates were funded EQUALLY, so they both had an EQUAL chance at getting their message to voters and no candidate could basically buy the election. Barack Obama first said he would take the public financing than rejected it when he could obviously make more money through donations. Politically, it was a good move because he has a lot more money but was it the right thing to do? I say no. It is an unbelievable advantage for Senator Obama to be able to spend over $20 million in one week compared to less than half of that for Senator McCain. While Senator Obama has the opportunity to run both positive and negative spots because of his windfall of money, Senator McCain has to preserve the money he has and at this point that means going almost completely negative. Not giving him the option to run positive ads talking about his plans for the economy, energy, and national security. Which is a disadvantage to the American voter who is deciding who to support.
Point 2: Barack Obama made a politically good move to reject public financing but was it the right thing for the American people? No. It takes the fairness and equal access to the candidates out of the picture which is needed for citizens to make their best judgement when voting. As president, you need to make decisions that are best for the American people, not best for your political campaign. Good judgement doesn't start election day, its needed every day of your life. It would be interesting to know what the poll numbers would be now if both candidates had the same amount of resources and facetime with voters. Obviously, with one campaign being able to have double the advertising, that has to play a factor.
Information used from:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/11/negative.ads/index.html
