Candidates dialing for dollars

Remember when ?dialing for dollars? was what television quiz show contestants did?? Well, that was in the ?good old days.??

In the ?brave new world? of presidential campaign financing, the ability to ?dial for dollars? is the new standard for success.? Never mind the candidates? respective credentials or views on the issues.?The ability to raise money, lots of it, early and often, now separates the top-tier candidates from the second- and third-tier hopefuls.

This new truth in presidential politics transcends party labels. Democratic and Republican presidential aspirants dial with digital dexterity for the millions of dollars needed to finance their media-driven campaigns.?The nature of presidential campaign financing has changed, and that is changing who can actually run successfully for president.

So far, Democrats are ahead in dialing for dollars.?For example, Sen. Hillary Clinton has raised a whopping $26 million, plus about $10 million transferred from her Senate campaign coffers.?Sen. Barack Obama is second, with some $25 million, but from about twice as many contributors as Hillary-many of them from internet sources.?

Former Senator and vice presidential candidate, John Edwards, has raised about $14 million for his campaign.?Other Democratic 2008 presidential contenders are trailing badly at this point, despite their credentials.

The Republican fund-raising frontrunner is former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who has raked in about $21 million.?Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has raised about $16 million, while Sen. John McCain is third, with about $12.5 million.?Other Republican hopefuls are far back in the pack.

In a way, there?s nothing really new about candidates from both parties dialing for dollars in their quest for the White House.? Indeed, money has long been the mother?s milk of American politics.?Lately, though, that milk has gotten sweeter for the few and sourer for the many.?If current trends continue, the so-called ?money primaries? will fundamentally alter the way we pick our presidents.

Instead of citizen presidents, like Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower, we?re likely to get more plutocratic presidents, precisely because their ability to raise mega-bucks for their presidential campaigns puts them in the driver?s seat on the road to the White House.?

The problem with plutocrats is they are not like you and me.?They live in a different America, one of prestige and privilege.?They view the world in terms of how to advance their own agendas.?They think they know what?s best for the rest of us out here in the hinterland.?

They tend to have what I would call a CEO mentality about most everything, including presidential politics.? The way to get their way is to get the right person into office, then hold his or her feet to the fire on issues that matter most to them.

Curiously, Barack Obama called all this ?obscene,? even as he continued to ?dial for dollars,? while giving lip service to public financing of presidential campaigns. I?ll have more on the irony of this pursuit of plutocracy in a later column.

Thomas B. Vaughn is an instructor at Motlow College and co-host of the radio show ?Viewpoints,? which airs on WCPI 91.3 FM.