I received a request to write a hub on why Politicians spend so much money in order to get elected to an office that pays so little.  I will attempt to offer my thoughts although I have no special skill or experience with this issue.  I ask that those who read this feel free to leave your comments.  Maybe together we can build a complete picture of why someone would do this.

To begin let us look at some of the recent campaigns at different levels of Government that exemplify what this question is all about.  For instance President Obama spent about $760 million in his election bid, which carries with it an annual salary of about $400,000 a year.  Arizona Senator John Kyle raised about $6.3 million, in his last election, to fend off a challenge from Jim Pederson, for a seat, which pays only $174,000 per year.  In a local election for the Phoenix City Council District 6 seat, the current appointed incumbent Sal DiCiccio has spent over $225,000 for a position that pays only $61,000 annually.  These facts I present as verifiable.  It took all of ten minutes on the Internet to find all these published and well documented numbers.  What cannot be found is the answer to the question "why"?  Why does someone raise so much for an office that pays so little?  At first look one can only say WOW!!!  What the hell is going on with our political system?  These types of facts bring into light why our Government is free spending this Nation's posterity into bankruptcy.

It is not a sound business practice to spend so much money to receive so little money in return.  How long would a business be around if it spent $100 for every $2 earned?  A business that spends in the red eventually ends up in bankruptcy court.  However, maybe money is only part of the return under consideration by these individuals, and that is what makes it justifiable for those that do just this.  When I took economics, in college, we were introduced to the "Public Choice Theory" which equated the similarity between economics and politics and was first mentioned by Duncan Black in 1948.  I guess that is where we developed phrases like "political capital", in lieu of "political log rolling" as I had learned in High School Government class.  I mean the sound of "political capital" makes one think of goods bartered, while "political log rolling" has a connotation of closed door, out of public sight, and kick backs.  The two terms appear as night and day, yet mean essentially the same.

So if the salary is not the only consideration, what might be the other considerations?  Take a moment to ponder that, we will get back to that in a moment.  Before we do, one note must be made very clear.  As I have written in another hub there is no such thing as a "free lunch" (see the sections on the "Basic Business Principles" and "Economics 101" of that hub).  A price is paid for everything, in one form or another.  With that irrefutable fact, there is one concession that each and every elected official has to concede, namely that all donors want to have access to you and your time.  The unanswered question is "what for?"  There is no doubt that some have very pure motives, but most just want something to give them a competitive edge.  That competitive edge may be the form of entitlements for a pet project, or legislation that might help them begin an industry that they would now have the lead in.  I must point out a cold hard fact that many may find distasteful, but nevertheless it is true.  That is, people (Americans) will always act in their own self-interest, which is the nature of our society.  One must always be discerning about each person that you come into contact, both directly and indirectly.  That means in person or through other means such as the media.  Actions bear out what is in the heart of a person, not just words.  When I had my own practice, I frequently illustrated this to clients by this thought process.  In total honesty, I have no care what happens with your project (i.e. cost, timelines, etc.), because my personal concern is my family.  However, by serving you, my client, the best I can (acting in the client/project's best interest) makes you, the client, willing to pay me for the services I provide, and that, in turn, helps me provide for my family, which is my primary concern.  This is an easy illustration to comprehend, one of a symbiotic relationship.  If I do my job in a manner that satisfies your needs, you will then in turn retain me to provide more services to you, which in turn provides for my family.  It is when we apply this concept to those elected officials that are such proficient fundraisers that a truly frightening scenario starts to immerge.  What exactly is this person promising behind close doors to garner so much financial support, while gaining so little in return in the open?  Frightening?!?!  Undoubtedly!!!

It has been said, "Politics makes strange bedfellows".  There is no doubt that I agree with that quote.  I have seen it in my very own life and career.  In my lifetime I have literally marched to the State Capital with the local Union leaders (AFL-CIO) on one side of me and a conservative State Senator on the other side of me, just to be squared off against many of those same Union leaders as we fought over the adoption of a new building code.  Even I find this amazing, and I lived it.  These events exemplify the very self-interest that I just discussed.  In the first instance we were allies in a fight to save the construction industry from an anti-growth initiative that would have destroyed the construction industry in Arizona.  The other instance, we were opponents because the building codes the Unions were backing would have astronomically increased construction costs in specific trades with no appreciable safety to the building occupants.  I wanted to illustrate this, because it too serves to illustrate how we always act out of our own self-interest.  The actions of all in both these cases were out of a desire to protect income to themselves.

So back to our thought, other than the salary consideration, what other considerations will make a person raise so much money, for so little money in return?  I would sum that up in a single word, POWER.  However, what exactly is “power”?  I think of political “power” as little as having something added to an agenda of a public meeting, or “fixing a ticket” of a friend, to something as big as committing or covering up a crime.  I really think the person’s character will point to which end of the spectrum we might be talking about.  We have already had Presidents that have covered up crimes and lied under oath while in office; I have written about this previously.  Maybe this political “power” can be equated to privilege.  Privilege being of course access to the finer things in life, which becomes most noticeable in Countries where the ruling class is the affluent while all others are in a peasant class.  Privilege might be having access to that which the general population cannot obtain, for example better heath care, better education, better living conditions.  This is best represented by the health care reforms that Congress is working on now.  Look closely, and you will see that Congress is exempting themselves from participating, as their current system supplies a better means of healthcare for their members and their families, yet Congress is completely content with providing a lower standard for their employer, the people.  To quote the late, great Red Skelton, "Government is from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people" (Thanks readytoescape for placing this in your hub, it is a powerful reminder to all).  I believe that this power also extends to another saying, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely", which I went into in another hub you may find that hub interesting reading.  It is that saying penned in 1887 that may confirm the most important consideration yet, for those that spend so much, for so little monetary return.

How crazy is this?  Let us go back to events that occurred in my lifetime alone.  We had one President think he was above the law and could do anything; he was later abandoned by his political party and resigned the Office in disgrace.  Yet another President that lied under oath retained his position because his political party felt it was more important to safeguard its power than act in a respectful manner to the Office of the President.  It was said at that time that character had no importance in the light of all his other accomplishments.  I submit that as a fallacy.  Character has ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING to do with an elected official, as that adds key insights into how that person will wield power that is handed to them by the people.  Ponder this about the ability to "fix a ticket".  Imagine, a school district, that the teacher's union, after facing many setbacks in its goal to free teachers from accountability by the Superintendent, gets active in an election and sees that almost all of the "unfriendly" board members are voted out and replaced with individuals that would be much more "sensitive" to the union's interests, with a goal of unseating the Superintendent.  This act was so blatant that even the liberal newspaper commented on the new "puppet" Governing Board.  Shortly after this election, in one of the first acts by this new Board, the Board voted to not pursue discipline against a teacher, that the teacher's union favored, even though the teacher appeared to have violated Federal Law and Regulations by inappropriately releasing student's records to one of the new board members.  I guess that since no sex occurred by a teacher and a student this Board found it easy to forward their own political careers by ignoring these actions in violation of Federal Law.  Then to top it off, because it was deemed a "personnel matter" they chose to cover this act up, and not even notify the students whose records were compromised.  The teacher's union President admitted in a public hearing that the teacher inappropriately accessed student's records, but that it was not intentional.  I ask what the hell is that all about?  I thought the Law applied to all.  There is a term when you "accidentally" kill someone; it is called MANSLAUGHTER and you still face penalty under the Law.  However, since these elected Representatives thought it was more expedient to cover up a political ally's crime, these Representatives conspired to bury this so it would not see the light of day.  This is a case that I know of first hand and I have not been able to get the Arizona Department of Education, Arizona Attorney General, or the Family Policy Compliance Department at the US Department of Education to investigate.  So even the lowest levels of elected Offices appear to have some power to cover up crimes.  I feel bad that one President got caught and had to pay a price that even escapes School Board Members.  Where is the justice in that?  The "win at all cost" attitude that has been exhibited by some athletes now transcends to the political world.  That leads to the abuses that we have seen in the past, so it will undoubtedly lead to the same result in the future.  It is just for that reason that term limits will never be fully effective in our political system as written in a hub I read recently, sorry to say ehern33, without other measures.

The only true campaign reform that can really take place in this Country is by two actions coupled with term limits.  First, we, the electorate, must be willing to forego party affiliation ourselves, and "vote the B@#$%!ds out".  That means anyone, no matter how good or bad should be voted out after a certain number of terms in office or if the elected official perpetrates an unacceptable act.  The second is true campaign reform.  These changes should include such things as limiting the amount of "soft money" that a campaign can spend.  Note here that I am saying SPEND not COLLECT as the Courts may interpret limiting collections as an infringement on someone's first amendment right.  Also with that, the candidate's election committee, no matter who publishes it, must authorize all political advertisements on behalf of a candidate.  Finally, all political advertisements MUST be scrutinized under the exact same criteria as products, which means that each advertisement must adhere to the same truth in advertising laws, not being allowed to mislead in even the most minuscule detail.  Political Advertisements for initiatives should be held to the same standards.

The first one can be done without any real change in law or process; it just requires that each voter take a little time to look at the issues and candidates BEFORE voting.  That may mean discarding political party affiliation, for the time being to remove someone that has been blatantly self-serving at the expense of the employer (people).  It may mean voting for an opponent that you would not normally support, but then watch that person closely while in office for that term, then if necessary, vote that person out at the next election, or recall that person during the term.  Recall brings up a very interesting thought.  If a person is running unopposed, do not cast a vote in that race, because each vote cast in that race makes it that much harder to recall that person, should the need arise.  Finally, for those that are elected, be realistic about how you win.  I am sick of our current President acting as if an overwhelming majority has put him into office because the Electoral College vote was so lopsided.  The Nation's popular vote placed him at only 54% as I recall, and that is far from an over whelming majority that have been shoved down our throats.  I remember how close elections for President Bush was always used to show no mandate, so why the double standard now?  Even when I ran for City Council, against the very same man that is running now in Phoenix Council District 6, I was out spent 73 to 1.  He spent over $73,000 to my $1,000 and bragged how he got 75% of the vote, I could not understand that, I thought it was more embarrassing considering he gave up 25% of the vote, I should not have garnered more than 2-3% of the vote.  I understood that most votes cast for me were not votes in support of me, but votes cast in opposition to him.  A dose of reality will go along way in keeping our elected officials humble and sensitive to we the people.

If we, the people, fail to keep our elected representatives in check, humbled, and sensitive to our demands, as the voters, then Abraham Lincoln's dream "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth" will be lost.  Would that mean his death and all those that died in our Civil War were in vain?  God forbid they were.