In the money / LJWorld.com

Archive for Friday, May 16, 2008

Is it just a coincidence that so many leading presidential candidates are wealthy?

J-W Editorials

May 16, 2008

How much money does someone need these days to run for president of the United States?

Americans still would like to think that our democracy ensures that anyone with drive and good ideas can mount a presidential campaign. That American dream may still be a reality, but net worth figures on some current presidential candidates indicate that having substantial monetary reserves can give a contender a leg up on the competition.

The nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation released figures this week on the net worth of current members of Congress, including three senators who still are in the presidential race: Sens. Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama.

McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, reportedly saw his net worth increase by $27.6 million between 2000 and 2006 to a total of $36.4 million. One of his primary challengers for the nomination, former Gov. Mitt Romney, reportedly had a net worth of between $200 million and $250 million.

In recent weeks, Clinton's campaign has confirmed that, since April 11, the candidate has loaned the campaign $6.4 million to allow her to continue her bid for the Democratic nomination. How, many people wondered, can someone afford to do that? It's not so hard if you have a net worth of $31 million. Clinton's total is especially notable because her net worth in 2000, when she and her husband left the White House, was reported as minus-$6 million. Obviously, public speaking and other post-presidential activities have been more lucrative for the Clintons than serving in the White House.

Even Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, who mounted a relatively brief presidential bid, had substantial assets: $13.3 million according to the Sunlight Foundation. Obama was well behind the pack with a 2006 net worth of $799,000.

The fact that successful fundraising has allowed Obama to support his candidacy primarily through donations offers some hope for other less-moneyed hopefuls, but it also positions Obama as the exception rather than the rule when it comes to presidential candidates.

It is not news that running for president is an expensive proposition and getting more expensive all the time. Travel and advertising eat up money quickly, and the length of American campaigns (the current Democratic race is a vivid illustration) makes it difficult for candidates to sustain their effort.

Major changes in our campaign system wouldn't be easy to achieve, but the fact that a majority of our top presidential candidates are multi-millionaires suggests that change may be needed. Do you have to be rich to run for president? Maybe not, but it sure doesn't hurt.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

16 May 2008
at 11:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ralphralph (Anonymous) says…

They're all rich (Bush), or want very badly to be (Clinton).
17 May 2008
at 9:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BigPrune (Anonymous) says…

What this non-partisan group didn't take into account is the help George Soros is providing by manipulating oil futures by using his hedge funds to drive up the price of oil in order to manipulate the US economy. Of course the excuse is George Bush is helping his buddies but in reality Soros is helping himself to a whole lot of money and he gets to help a democrat into office - especially the most liberal democrat. So Obama might only be worth $799,000, but in reality, with a guy like Soros behind him, he is worth billions.