Bursting the Political Dot-com Bubble

Our media is so desperate for breaking stories that every time something new happens it is trumpeted as a "revolution."

The latest case in point - presidential campaigns. Most recently, the National Journal writes in an article titled "The First 21st-Century Campaign" that this presidential election is a "watershed" that will change politics forever. The hard evidence the article provides is this year's astonishing fundraising numbers: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama together raised more than $200 million for their presidential campaigns during 2007, more than ten times as much as John Kerry in 2004. Obama has gone on to raise roughly another $125 million during the first quarter of 2008, nearly doubling Clinton's estimated $68 million. Together, they've raised nearly $400 million so far, raising the possibility of a two-year presidential election cycle with a total cost that will spiral over $1 billion.

So the Internet has indeed revolutionized and democratized fundraising - the overwhelming majority of these massive sums have been raised through small, online donations. But does this mean that the basic process politics - how leaders win popular support - has been fundamentally revolutionized? Hardly. Higher sums in fundraising are likely to benefit some campaigns (such as Obama's) more than others, but their net effect is simply to make politics in general more expensive and more wasteful, as campaigns ratchet up the spending in their arms race.

For a number of campaigns this year, massive Internet-based fundraising hasn't translated into any real voter support. The National Journal article conveniently ignores the fate of Ron Paul, whose Internet-based campaign raised an astonishing $28 million in 2007, but failed to download itself into the actual election, coming out of the primaries with only 21 delegates to Sen. John McCain's 1,331.

Money may be a necessary ingredient for a successful campaign, but it doesn't make up for other weaknesses. The top fundraiser for the Republicans was Rudy Giuliani, who collected more than $58 million in 2007 and didn't win a single race, dropping out by the end of January (Dr. Paul is still running - perhaps hoping that he can convince 1,300 of John McCain's delegates to switch their vote for a bribe of $25,000 each).

Here's a reality check: the Internet hasn't revolutionized politics. It's only revolutionized fundraising. Maybe someday, when citizens of the United States are permanently connected to virtual reality with only feeding tubes keeping them alive (think of the Matrix), it will be possible to translate online support directly into election victories. For now, all that the Internet can do for candidates is raise money. Money can pay for a sprawling campaign staff and TV propaganda, but it can't buy the things that candidates really need to win - charisma, a popular message and luck. Compare

Ron Paul, who has a legion of online fans, raised $28 million in 2007, and won 21 delegates, to Mike Huckabee, who barely had a functioning website, raised less than $9 million in 2007 and won 270 delegates.

The overwhelming majority of political discourse is still taking place through the traditional media of television, print media and conversations over the water cooler. Granted, more people are getting their dose of news and commentary online, but a campaign's online following doesn't necessarily translate into favorable coverage.

If anything, online weakness and poor fundraising can turn into a strength in their own right - arguably, a large part of Mike Huckabee's appeal that allowed him to win 270 delegates and tie the much wealther Romney for second place in the Republican primary was due to the fact that he was an underdog, running a "real people-based" campaign on a shoestring. Similarly, John McCain was the financial underdog to both Giuliani and Romney throughout all of 2007 (raising $37 million to their combined total of more than $110 million), but ended up beating both of them in the primaries.

What were McCain's strengths? The Arizona Senator doesn't have the speaking gifts of Barack Obama, but he has a personal history of heroism, built through his principled decision as a young man to refuse early release from the dungeons of Communist Vietnam. Unlike Giuliani, who was brought down by corruption scandals and his stance favoring abortion rights, McCain is pro-life and has built a reputation for personal integrity. Unlike the superficial, flip-flopping Romney, McCain came across as a man who believed what he was saying.

The lesson to be taken from this isn't just that the Internet doesn't matter as much as the media claims, but also that money, in general, doesn't matter as much in politics as people think. One effective line in a free debate is likely to generate more support for a campaign than a hundred thousand Myspace friends. The personal history, speaking abilities and political positions of a candidate are each worth more politically than $100 million in online contributions. If you don't believe me, then just ask Ron Paul.