Is campaign fundraising an indication of voter support?

Do you really believe campaign money equals good ole rootin', tootin' grass roots voter support? If so, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. American politics today, like pro and college sports, is so totally controlled by big money, only the very rich and/or very corrupt politicians can ever hope to win an election or a ball game.

Every day the lapdog news media of both the left and the right print the latest in fundraising figures like ballpark scores of yesterday's games. Just guessing as of this moment, but it's always something like, Hillary has reached the $40 million mark, and is leading Obama by $7 million. Rudy is out in the boonies trying to bring his figure up to $20 million, while McCain is struggling to raise his first $10 million.

Where do you think they're getting all that money? It ain't from schoolkids collecting pennies. I know, I know. There are legal limits on how much each individual can donate to political candidates. But we all are aware, wink wink, that there are ways around the law. One example is that little ex-con crook in California, Norman Hsu, who managed to raise millions for Hillary under the guise of representing an ethnic community group. The really big bucks come from the deep pockets of unions, entertainment, sports, corporations, drug companies, big oil and other so-called interest groups. A few donors who give millions of dollars to just one candidate leads me to believe that those few donors really expect to receive something for the money donated. Believe it or not, big business and the super rich do just that, in regard to paying politicians for future favors.

Estimates are that among all the scrambling Presidential candidates, Democrat or Republican, close to $500 million will be spent on what already seems like endless campaigning. Hmm, if all that money could be spent on really useful purposes, let's see, how many poor kids could get a year's lunch money, or old folks get decent healthcare or war zone GIs get effective flak vests with all that dough?

Not to pick on poor Hillary, but just yesterday she flew into my little city of 500,000 Arizona desert dwellers to give a speech at, of course, a resort hotel fundraiser. The cost if you wanted to attend was $1,400 per person. I guess the fee also included lunch and a photo op while hugging Hillary. Since I was involved in such doings in previous elections, things have changed a bit. When I was working for the Kennedy campaigns in the 60s, we charged $20 a head for Democrats to attend luncheons for our candidates. We filled the rooms, but many people grumbled, even with a free lunch tossed in.

Hillary's lunch organizers say they raised half a million bucks, but wait just a damn minute. On the evening TV news of her visit day, I saw dozens of Secret Service guys, local cops and bodyguards driving in a limo convoy to the hotel for the luncheon. That and Hillary's flights with her big staff must have cost a million. Most likely the taxpayers paid for it all, while Hillary took the donated dough and ran away to more money-raising luncheons.

I have another bothersome thought about this endless candidate fundraising. The elections are more than a year away, and if Hillary's on the road every day, dare I ask who's doing her Senate work in DC? The same goes for Obama, McCain and the others who are supposed to be active members of Congress, and being paid to work for their constituents, not run around trying to extract more money from them. 

 It has been proven, that it is not always the big spenders who win the elections.  It is often those who connect with the people the most that win.