What Trump’s win may say about money in politics

Clinton lost despite a much bigger campaign war chest, raising doubts about money buying elections. Are voters more savvy in judging well-funded campaigns?

Reuters
Women listen to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton speak at an Oct. 14 fundraiser in Seattle, Washington.

For Americans who do not want “big money” to sway presidential elections, the 2016 contest was one for hope. Hillary Clinton raised twice as much as Donald Trump in campaign money – much of it from wealthy donors. She had nearly six times as many campaign workers on the payroll. Her TV ads far outnumbered Mr. Trump’s over the course of the campaign. And yet Mrs. Clinton lost the election.

Many reasons account for Trump’s victory and Clinton’s defeat – their promises, character, experience, etc. But unlike most recent presidential elections, money was not a deciding factor, even though the presidential candidates altogether raised $1.3 billion.

This puts a dent in the idea that elections can be bought. And it opens the possibility that American voters are more savvy than political operatives might think in being able to judge candidates and their messages despite a barrage of ad campaigns backed by large campaign war chests.

Much can still be done to rein in the influence of money in politics, especially in races for Congress. But unlike a dictatorship, a democracy must always rely on its citizens being responsible for their thoughts and actions. If they alone are duped by a leader, they must pay the price. Government cannot police political ads, either in their reach or for their honesty. Voters are their own first defense against lies and half-truths.

Trump claims he made up for having less money by his extensive use of social media, such as Twitter and Facebook. Barack Obama also relied heavily on the internet to win in 2008. This digital outreach helped both of them reach voters free of charge, bypassing the traditional – and expensive – media.

Special interest groups that benefit from government support and then use a portion of that benefit to bankroll candidates should take note. Voters are showing more independence of thought and a greater discernment toward candidates, at least at the presidential level. Money still talks in politics. But voters may now be better listeners.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to What Trump’s win may say about money in politics
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2016/1115/What-Trump-s-win-may-say-about-money-in-politics
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe