Subject: FWD "Dollars Per Vote" calculated (fwd)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 055125 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
Chris has forwarded a most interesting essay. Note particularly
the point the author makes in his last three or four paragraphs --
about the "vested interest" the TV industry (!) has in the present
system of campaign funding!!!! (BTW, You haven't forgotten who owns the
U.S. TV industry?!?! -- General Electric, Westinghouse and Mickey
Mouse).... I offer one additional observation at the end.........guru
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 04:42:58 +0200
From: Christoph Reuss
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: FWD: "Dollars Per Vote" calculated
Dear Roy,
perhaps they should also do a hit-list on "Dollars Per Study" (or even
"Dollars Per Scientist"?) of those "Rich Health Bureaucracies" ;-) ...
Cheerio,
Chris
____________________________________FWD____________________________________
>Subject: "Dollars Per Vote" calculated
>Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998
>From: Norman Solomon
>
>
>
>NEWS THAT STILL GOES UNREPORTED: "DOLLARS PER VOTE"
>
>By Norman Solomon / Creators Syndicate
>
>
> SAN FRANCISCO -- After last Tuesday's primary election in
>California, news outlets across the country were quick to provide
>a comforting moral to the story. As National Public Radio
>reported the next day: "Big money was a big loser."
>
> The winner of the Democratic nomination for governor, career
>politician Gray Davis, spent "only" $12 million. He defeated a
>pair of wealthy rivals, business magnate Al Checchi and Rep. Jane
>Harman, who financed their own campaigns -- running up a combined
>tab of approximately $60 million.
>
> Although it was the most expensive election in any state's
>history, the media spin was reassuring about the results.
>Standards have sunk so low that the triumph of a candidate's $12
>million campaign is supposed to be a victory for the little guy.
>
> We're used to seeing rich individuals and corporations give
>large amounts of money to winning candidates. But a lot of
>Americans are apt to take offense when a wealthy person tries to
>cut out the middleman and gain an elected position directly. We
>seem to prefer leasing arrangements rather than outright
>purchases of public office.
>
> By now, with election-year inflation so rampant, our eyes
>often glaze over at the sight of huge campaign expenditures. The
>news coverage of election returns might have more meaning if it
>included a tabulation we rarely see: the cost of each vote.
>
> "Dollars Per Vote" could put various campaigns into clearer
>focus. We ought to know how much the candidates spent for every
>vote they received.
>
> After a fruitless search for news about Dollars Per Vote in
>the national election of autumn 1996, I did the math myself.
>
> Bill Clinton's campaign spent $61.8 million of taxpayer
>money to win 45.6 million votes -- so his Dollars Per Vote total
>was $1.36. Meanwhile, Bob Dole adhered to the same spending limit
>and got 37.9 million votes -- for a "DPV" of $1.63.
>
> In 1996, billionaire Ross Perot accepted federal funds with
>a ceiling of $29 million and captured just under 8 million votes.
>Perot's DPV: $3.67.
>
> At the same time, the man who finished fourth in the
>presidential balloting, Ralph Nader, opted to cap his campaign
>expenditures at $5,000 and ended up with 581,000 votes. Nader's
>DPV: $0.01.
>
> In the California primary a few days ago, the Dollars Per
>Vote again went unreported. But the DPV amounts were easy to
>calculate.
>
> With nearly all the ballots counted in California's "open
>primary," the winner of the Democratic gubernatorial nomination,
>Gray Davis -- the guy who had spent a mere $12 million --
>received 1,885,315 votes. His DPV: $6.36.
>
> In second place, former Northwest Airlines tycoon Checchi --
> after bankrolling a campaign of close to $40 million -- wound up
>with 682,479 votes. His DPV was a whopping $58.61.
>
> Harman, whose family wealth enabled her to spend a reported
>$20 million, came in third with 664,005 votes. Her DPV: $30.12.
>
> Compare those Dollars Per Vote figures with data on the top
>vote-getter for governor who was neither a Democrat nor a
>Republican. The campaign for the Green Party nominee, Dan
>Hamburg, spent about $15,000 statewide and ended up with 82,857
>votes. Hamburg's DPV: $0.18.
>
> From coast to coast, it has become fashionable to decry the
>effects of money on politics. Many of us -- journalists included
>-- roll our eyes as incumbents in Washington refuse to take any
>serious action for campaign finance reform. But some media owners
>have a direct stake in runaway campaign spending.
>
> During recent months, Californians watched with dismay as
>the contrast between docile news reporting and robust advertising
>grew even more extreme. Television stations gave very low
>priority to examining important issues -- but filled the airwaves
>with commercials for candidates.
>
> Around the nation, candidates are boosting profit margins
>for radio and TV stations. While campaign news coverage is rarely
>better than mediocre, broadcast time for political ads is selling
>at a premium. And the entire money-mad process is likely to keep
>escalating between now and Election Day.
>
> All in all, quite a loss for "big money."
>
****************
.......In the gleeful rush by many in the U.S. (not just the above
author) to point out the failure of the "big spending" gubernatorial
candidates in California ... no-one seems to have thought of this aspect:
While it is true that the 'winner' in the California governors race
spent (in total) one-third to one-fourth as much as either of the two
millionaires he defeated -- nevertheless, the millionaires were spending
their own money!!! They were/are "beholden" to no one..... I wonder, who
is the 'winner' "beholden to" for the $12 million that he spent????????
.......That, I submit, ought to be the "real" issue......guru
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html