LETTER: Criticism of `buying the presidency' based on insecurity, double standard

---

by Jonathan Chan

---

To the editor:

I am no supporter of Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes, but I do have a problem with critics who attack him for personally financing his campaign.

They quickly label him as someone who is trying to "buy the presidency."

However, it isn't wise to make the assumption that money buys votes.

All money buys is exposure, which could be positive if the public likes the message or negative if the message is disagreeable.

Would Colin Powell be similarly condemned if he were able to and did personally finance a campaign for the presidency?

Not likely given his popularity.

In fact, some might consider it a bonus that he would be able to disseminate his message further than other candidates limited by the campaign finance laws.

This double standard sends the obscure message, "You can spend your personal fortune only if we would have voted for you, but if we don't like you, then you're just trying to buy the presidency."

Ridiculous since we may not know any candidate's message until she begins using her personal fortune.

The best and easiest resolution to this double standard is to acknowledge that personal financing is irrelevant and the ultimate importance remains the message.

That is why I found it amusing when Senator Bob Dole (R-Kan.) blamed his loss in the Arizona primary on Forbes' purchase of negative television ads.

Wasn't Dole essentially crying, "I lost because more Arizonians realized what a bad candidate I am?" Of course, the situation is not as simplistic as this, for it assumes that Forbes' ads were not unfairly misleading.

But then again, I am sure all the Republican candidates have unfair and misleading negative ads.

Forbes simply delivered his message to more people than Dole did, and for whatever reason, more Arizonians agreed with him.

That is not to imply a causal relationship, though.

Those two facets express separate components of any campaign.

To first make the public aware of the message and then persuade the public.

The virtue of our political system is that everything is ultimately answerable to the people.

If more people are exposed to a political message, all the better. If the message is compelling, even more will agree than otherwise. If the message is offensive, even more will disagree than otherwise.

This in part explains Forbes' so far erratic state primary results.

In sum, campaign media, much like most forms of media, cannot tell us what to think but only what to consider.

Jonathan Chan

SRC '98

This item appeared in the Opinion section of the March 15, 1996 issue.

Copyright © 1996 The Rice Thresher. All Rights Reserved.
This document may be distributed electronically, provided that it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of:
The Rice Thresher, Rice University, 6100 Main, Houston, TX 77005-1892, USA.