  |
|||
|
|
|
||
|
Posted by Kate Butler May 17, 2007 |
With the inclusion of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney slated to run for the White House in 2008, we may be finally be ready to elect a President who is female, African-American or Mormon. We’ve had a Jewish vice-presidential nominee (Joe Lieberman), and also a female VP nominee in Geraldine Ferraro in 1984. However, after seeing a report that came out yesterday, it is evident that overcoming these barriers might be for naught. It seems that money is truly the last form of discrimination in the world of high-stakes politics: if you’re not rich, you don’t have a chance at winning.
According to the Personal Financial Disclosure Form, 10 presidential candidates are worth more than $1 million, and the total amount that these candidates are worth is over one-quarter of a billion dollars.
So how does money affect media perceptions in presidential races? There is still an idea that to be a legitimate, ‘for real’ contender, candidates must be seen to be extremely wealthy. Wealth in our society buys the connections that presidential candidates need, and this is true even with the media. The mainstream media takes candidates seriously if they are seen to have a good chance of raising the type of funds that will make party faithful vote for them.
We’ve seen rich presidents in the past, Teddy Roosevelt and J.F.K., but the trend in recent years has been frightening. From George W. Bush’s war chest, to John Kerry’s family fortunes, to John McCain’s family money, the only people who can get a chance at the White House are those with the funds. The media is aware of this and so they are slowly becoming ok with minority candidates, as long as these people bring the right bank statements to the table.