![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
David Friedman: donating to both sides
Oct. 4th, 2011 03:35 pmDavid Friedman writes:
"It is, I gather, fairly common for corporate donors to give money to both candidates in some two candidate races. Assuming that is correct, the question is why."
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19727420&postID=3952830336830313963&page=1&token=1317756801262
He goes on to suggest that if politicians after retirement are allowed to take leftover campaign funds for personal use (does anybody happen to know whether this is true?), then there might be a direct personal benefit to the candidates. I doubt that that is the main driver, but I do think the question posed is worth picking apart. Some alternative suggestions are mentioned in comments.
Here are some thoughts I added as comments:
1) Donating to the major candidates can also make it even harder for third party candidates (often with views the corporations might see as dangerous) to break into a system already rigged to favor two-party elections.
2) Is there rolling over of funds from one campaign to the next campaign? If so, this strategy might also help in subsequent primary campaigns.
Actually, this might be the case anyway, just insofar as having launched a successful campaign the first time around will boost your name recognition in future elections.
3) There seems to be a common assumption that campaign dollars can be more or less directly converted into votes. If this is the case, then the candidate who gets elected will always be the one who spends the most. If two candidates receive equal donations and one of them sets aside a chunk of the cash as a retirement fund, the other candidate will win. So using campaign contributions in this way either indicates that the candidate does not wish to be elected (which would defeat the purpose of the donations from the corporation's perspective) or that she is gambling that her opponent will make inefficient use of his own funds.
"It is, I gather, fairly common for corporate donors to give money to both candidates in some two candidate races. Assuming that is correct, the question is why."
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19727420&postID=3952830336830313963&page=1&token=1317756801262
He goes on to suggest that if politicians after retirement are allowed to take leftover campaign funds for personal use (does anybody happen to know whether this is true?), then there might be a direct personal benefit to the candidates. I doubt that that is the main driver, but I do think the question posed is worth picking apart. Some alternative suggestions are mentioned in comments.
Here are some thoughts I added as comments:
1) Donating to the major candidates can also make it even harder for third party candidates (often with views the corporations might see as dangerous) to break into a system already rigged to favor two-party elections.
2) Is there rolling over of funds from one campaign to the next campaign? If so, this strategy might also help in subsequent primary campaigns.
Actually, this might be the case anyway, just insofar as having launched a successful campaign the first time around will boost your name recognition in future elections.
3) There seems to be a common assumption that campaign dollars can be more or less directly converted into votes. If this is the case, then the candidate who gets elected will always be the one who spends the most. If two candidates receive equal donations and one of them sets aside a chunk of the cash as a retirement fund, the other candidate will win. So using campaign contributions in this way either indicates that the candidate does not wish to be elected (which would defeat the purpose of the donations from the corporation's perspective) or that she is gambling that her opponent will make inefficient use of his own funds.