Recently, I wrote a post leveraging the WSJ's high costs of high-speed technology sentiments. Today I see more of the same money leveraging taking place. In this scenario it involves the coming presidential election. In many ways, the election involves huge marketing campaigns, where loyalists and foil-ists endeavor at outdoing one another. Behind the liaisons, the campaigning, the slights at others, is the purpose of it all, to provide value to the nation, by elucidating its next best leader. Like with services and products, ideally all of the marketing is to supply end users, the general public, with value, right?
However, as we know in marketing, those with bigger budgets are likely to hold advantages over others less fiscally-challenged. Public brands have investors while presidential hopefuls have donators. As with brand-related investors, some political investors have deep pockets. The WSJ features Texas billionaire, Harold Simmons. It would be one thing to dig in your deep pockets to support a campaigner; yet, is it another to donate so your money can be used for leverage in defeating opponents?
So far, Mr. Simmons has selflessly donated toward several candidates. That's a humanistic sentiment; Wait a second. It seems Simmons isn't using greenbacks to necessarily back anyone; rather, he hopes his funds serve to defeat the other side, Obama's side, regardless of who winds up dethroning the current President. As the WSJ author writes: It isn't particularly important which man wins the nomination, for Mr. Simmons simply wants to defeat the president and reduce the reach of government.
Mr. Simmons is not shy with his money or his agenda. "Any of these Republicans would make a better president than that socialist, Obama. Obama is the most dangerous American alive…because he would eliminate free enterprise in this country," he states from his Texan home.
WSJ sources site Simmons' contributions to tally over $18 million, (so far) making him the largest campaign contributor of the 2012 election. As addressed, Mr. Simmons' agenda is unique from other contributors whose monies are purposed to support a direct candidate. It seems Mr. Simmons promotes any and everyone who may ultimately change the overall US tax and regulatory practices.
Reading more into the dynamic of available funds, the playing field is not so lopsided. Republicans embrace such generous super-PAC donations; because, some see Obama's campaign hosting the advantage, which had $85 million in reserves at the end of February (more than all four GOP candidates combined – to date).
The elections are about finding the peoples' leader. However, is the election more like marketing? As far as digital technology, we're seeing more partnerships and leveraged monies, all coming at a cost to end users, the people. Is campaign support eventually going to cost the betterment of the people? Will the next leader get there due to merit or the credit of their campaign and associated supporters?