Michael Bloomberg’s campaign is gaining ground, and the reason is obvious: He’s spending more money than any other presidential candidate at a very fast pace.
As of last week, Bloomberg shelled out more than $344 million since declaring his candidacy in late November. His advertisements are everywhere, to the point where it’s difficult to avoid them. He employs more than 2,400 campaign staffers at more than 150 campaign field offices, all of which are focused on Super Tuesday states. And as a result, he hit 19% in a national poll this week and qualified for Wednesday night’s Democratic debate.
Bloomberg’s Democratic opponents — namely Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts — have been quick to criticize the former New York City mayor for trying to buy his way into the election. And they have a point: The only reason Bloomberg was able to enter the race late, skip the first couple of primary states entirely, and still gain ground is that he has a net worth of over $60 billion.
Bloomberg can spend as much money on whatever he likes. But his billionaire status will be a problem for his campaign, especially if he hopes to beat Sanders, whose campaign is based on the grassroots support he’s accumulated over the last few years.
But Bloomberg doesn’t seem to care. After all, this seems to be a habit of his. He spent close to $250 million on his mayoral election efforts. And the only reason he was able to win his third term as New York City’s mayor was that he successfully changed the city’s term-limit law, in part by exerting pressure on charities to which he had donated.
It doesn’t really matter how many times voters see Bloomberg’s message if its credibility is at stake. And it will be difficult to convince voters that his campaign is legitimate when the only people advocating for Bloomberg are the people he’s paid.
The problem is that Bloomberg is just a symptom. Our elections are becoming increasingly determined by money, which should be an affront to anyone who values small-d democratic values. Our politicians are supposed to represent and lead us. That means they must connect with and know the voters they’re trying to win. Grassroots politics forces candidates to do just that. Without this on-the-ground connection, the gulf between the elected and the represented will grow, and our government will become less representative and more aristocratic.
Money should not be a substitution for political talent, genuine messaging, and charisma. Bloomberg might have talent, but no one would know about it if it weren’t for his deep pockets. That’s a problem, and voters should treat it as such.
