Campbell Brown: McCain, Obama, Buy Food Not Ads
CNN’s Campbell Brown lashed out at both Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama in a recent commentary, for planning to spend a combined $30 million on ads – most of them negative – every week, until election day, instead of using the money to help the poor.
You see, several organizations that help the poor by giving them three meals per day for free, are in trouble. The economic crisis has resulted in people giving less money to charities. The ones who suffer most, and most immediate, are those who were already suffering.
If Obama and McCain would give that slightly more than $60 million (election day is more than two weeks off) to such charities, they would be able to feed homeless and other poor Americans for months. Even if they would only give a part of, say one third, these organizations and individuals would be helped.
The idea is a good one, but it will undoubtedly result in some people answering that McCain and Obama want to win elections and that, if you want to win, you have to run ads. True, perhaps. But there are other ways to make the public think highly of you: what do you think it would do if John McCain or Barack Obama went to a charity that helps the poor eat, give them a couple of million and help them feed the homeless for one day?
Media would be all over it – it would be the best advertisement you can ever wish for, and you’re helping people out at the same time.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
I say why cant they have both? Whichever campaign does this first ontheir own will get the political points and support a worthy cause? The only problem is that whoever does this second will be able to “one up” the other guy. McCain seems to have the upper hand when thinking of these things, (like the bracelet, wishing Nancy Reagan and Senator Kennedy well when in the hospital etc)
I completely agree with this article. $30 million is alot of money, they spend so much money on ads that give them 30 seconds to attack eachother. But as far as im concerned this doesnt help anybody. They say they care, and that they want what is best for the people. Well i say that eating cercaintly wouldnt hurt.
If they gave some money to charities, the news would deffinetly be talking about it, and i don’t see better publicity than that.
Of course, charities should’t be about getting political points. What else can we expect… they’re politicians.
As much as I decry the enormous spending on political ads, isn’t it a little disingenous to be a media persona who’s job is to generate heat and discussion around the political campaigns then to say “Oh what a shame we spend so much on these ads” How about CNN donating a half hour to the hungry and donate that ad revenue that does to that half hour.
Well, I think you could certainly call it “disingenuous” to a degree but… I also earn money with political analysis and, yes, especially catfights or mudslinging drive in hits. Nonetheless, I don’t think it’s dishonest or hypocritical to say ‘yeah, that’s a good idea.’ If they would do what Brown suggested, I would most certainly cover it, and I think many more would applaud them for taking this initiative.
This is going to sound cold. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love it if we spent more money on charity and less on politics, but…
They were given the money by private citizens specifically to use for their campaign. I wonder if it is even legal for them to use it for other purposes other than their campaign. Someone more familiar with campaign finance law will have to inform me. But even if it’s not illegal, it seems a bit over the line. If the people wanted to give the money to charity, they should have given it to charity (which I, by all means, encourage) instead of the politician.
Don’t blame the politicians for spending so much money–<i>it’s us who are giving it to them!
Mike;
This argument sounds strangely similar to one I heard recently regarding taxation (i.e. “Its my money to redistribute, not yours”)
c3, I guess it is somewhat similar. The main different though, it that campaign contributions are voluntary, and given for the specific purpose of a campaign. Taxes are given because it is the law, and with the understanding that it is at the sole discretion of the government to decide how to use it.
Anyway, really I wouldn’t be upset if the campaigns gave their money to charity, even if I had given money to them. But I am curious to know if it would even be legal. And my main point is that we all blame the candidates for wasting so much money, but they are just spending what the people are giving them.
Though I admit to being shocked at the amount of money being spent in this election, that is not the point. Citizens DONATED that money to their candidate of choice to spend getting elected, not to feed the less fortunate in foreign countries. America is the most generous nation in the world when it comes to charity, but sadly the world is never satisfied, almosts trying to guilt us into doing more…well, here is a wake up call. Right now, America is hurting, and it is time that WE TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN…my advice, is that other countries need to start tightening their own belts, wake up to the reality that the charity wagon train from America is about to pull into the barn.