Bing, Bling, she shot them down
Bing, Bling, set records, wow
Bing, Bling, that awful sound
Bing, Bling, of voters going down

The first quarter 2008 money is rolling into the campaign coffers in record numbers. Hillary Clinton set a first quarter record by raising $26 million. She rolled another $10 million into her funds from her Senate account, giving her $36 million. Meanwhile, John Edwards raised over $14 million. Bill Richardson picked up $6 million for the primaries and $5 million for the general. Joe Biden has raised $3 million and has another $3.6 he can roll over from his Senate coffers. Chris Dodd raised $4 million and rolled over another $5 million. And the Republicans are expected to announce their millions shortly.

Money, money, money, money.  That is what our elections are all about.  We seem to care about who can raise the most and who can spend the most; more, it seems, than we care about who has the best policy platform.  Ironically, after spending all this money on silly stuff like network television ads, we expect the ultimate winner to be able to be fiscally responsible while in office.

Now I realize that we have all heard these complaints before, how money is all that matters in politics now because money is how candidates get votes.  But is this really how we want to run our country?  Are we really so cynical a people that we anoint the candidate with the best brand?

And do we really need all that money to run successful campaigns?  Compare the success versus cost of the Hillary 1984 mash-up video to the success and costs of running an ad on network television, or even to the success and cost of Hillary’s scripted, stilted, and perfectly lit web videos.  There are opportunities today to reach more voters with more substance for less money than ever before.  Remember, in 2004 more people saw the Jib-Jab animation of Kerry and Bush singing This Land is Your Land than visited both of their websites combined.

Then why are we all hell-bent on setting records for fundraising?  Why are candidates and the media covering them more interested in using lots of money to manipulate the voters than they are in using less money and new technologies to connect with the voters?

The number of emails I received last week from candidates and near-candidates on both sides of the aisle, from the DNC and the RNC, from the DCCC and the RSCC, from all of the campaign organizations telling me that we only had a few more days to contribute before the FIRST quarter reports had to be filed was astounding.  It is only April 1, 2007 and the election is in November 2008, yet they are all running like the vote is next week.

The more I get these pleas for money, the more I think we are looking at the Oralization of politics.  Not oral as in too much talk, but Oral, as in Oral Roberts.  If we don’t give our candidates the money they need before it is too late, they will be struck down by a mighty bolt of bad press and defecting funders (just ask Hillary about David Geffen).

But regardless of how much money these guys raise, they will still be here tomorrow.  With so many primaries loading up in February 2008, it is unlikely that any candidate with any reasonable amount of money will give up before they get started. After all, Oral is still with us.

Bing, Bling, the voters are going down