By Alex White
Contributing Writer
Is $140 million enough to win a gubernatorial election? Meg Whitman hopes so. As of Oct. 5, she has spent at least $140 million, $119 million out of her own pocket, to fund her campaign to be California’s governor. This leaves her competitor, Jerry Brown, at a severe and unfair disadvantage.
Allowing Whitman to freely spend her own fortune, which has no bearing on political capability, changes the focus of the election from policy to flashy advertisements and cripples our democracy.
This spending has had a considerable effect on the race. Whitman’s popularity has been on a steady rise in points since late June, shortly after winning her primary. It is a travesty to see people deciding to vote for Whitman, not because of her platform, but because of what is conveyed about Brown through ads.
Whitman, who was CEO of Ebay for 10 years, is currently worth $1.3 billion, according to Forbes, and she has spent much of this vast fortune on advertising in both her primary and general elections. Jerry Brown, California’s governor from 1975-83, has spent just $10.7 million on his campaign.
Whitman’s funding goes to many different places, but Politico says that over $60 million of this has gone to the Federal Election Commission, a company that buys radio and television advertising spots. Californians have seen and heard these ads for months, and they seemed to have worked. Whitman won her primary by 37 percent, in no small part because of her controversial attack ads.
The two most recent governors of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gray Davis, each outspent their opponents in their respective elections.
This system where ads can sway swing voters and sometimes steal an election corrupts the purpose of democracy. Whitman is buying votes to get herself elected. Californians should be casting their votes based on their opinions and facts about the candidates, not libel and empty promises.
Before Whitman ran for governor, she ran a major corporation, making billions of dollars, while Brown has spent most of his career dedicated to public office. The current system punishes Brown for not having his own personal wealth. Allowing Whitman to spend a fortune on her campaign without limit is unfair.
Some may say that Whitman is just taking advantage of what she has, but in reality she is using an advantage that has nothing to do with her political capabilities. The billions she earned before she ran for governor should have no bearing on the election.
Whitman’s actions affirm the need for a campaign spending cap. The cap would even the playing field and force voters to focus on policy and not advertisements.
Hopefully, Whitman’s record-setting spending will not sway voters, but instead they will take the time to evaluate the candidates based on their positions.
Leave a Reply