One reason why people confuse politicians with rock stars
This morning, Lokes and I were on our way to his office for a meeting with his boss (well, he’s the one with the meeting - I had to go get Rae’s cake), and on the radio, we heard about Senator Barack Obama coming to Seattle.
We heard that they were charging people $25 to $100 to get into Qwest to see him?
Did we hear that right?
I Googled the event and got hit with this blog.
Now that is just hilarious.
I’m not into politics (although I imagine if I were, I’d not be very good at it being something of a pushover and a wimp) but is this common practice, to have to buy a ticket to watch a senator speak? Really, I’m asking, ‘coz this is just too funny!
It’s like he’s a rock star or something (all due respect to the Senator, I mean, I think he’s kinda cute). But isn’t he trying to get votes or something to be the next president? So, looking at it very simplistically, one is PAYING to hear why one should vote for him?
Conflicted, no?
Please, educate me.
Posted in Imperfect America
June 1st, 2007 at 11:16 am
It has to do with financing his campaign. One can find many online and various other free outlets to read transcripts or watch video of a politician (in this case a senator) speak about their platform, but the people who are going to this and the other events that cost money to get into are typically the hardcore-supporters who have no problem ponying up the money to be in attendance.
I paid $250 a few years back to see the Democratic primary candidate Howard Dean at the House of Blues in Los Angeles, and it was my campaign contribution. In the end, I didn’t get what I paid for (alas, he was not successful in his primary bid), but I don’t regret financially supporting the candidate I felt most passionately for, especially because not only did I get to hear him give a very uplifting speech in person, but I was entertained by the likes of The Folksmen, but also by a reunion performance of The Bangles and many others. It was a fun night.
So yeah, the politicians HAVE become rock stars.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:44 am
Yes, campaigns are horrendously expensive; and they start much earlier than they used to, which means that the campaign expenses go on far longer than they used to. And (unfortunately, in my opinion) contributions are limited to a relatively low maximum. I am guessing that pay-to-listen doesn’t count as a contribution, so that perhaps this (or perhaps part of the ticket’s price) is a (admittedly small) way to get around the limited contribution law.
Also, there may be a small psychological advantage to the candidate if you pay to hear him/her. I have heard that people who pay even a very small amount for a kitten or puppy are inclined to give the animal a better home than if they are simply given the animal for free; apparently we have at least a slight emotional investment in things that we have felt were valuable enough in our opinions to purchase. Similarly, if you paid to hear somebody speak, perhaps you will value that person more (and be more likely to campaign or vote for him) than if you just heard him/her for free.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:07 pm
I’m just doing a BlogHer tour around to check out some of the cool attendees and landed upon your site.
Sadly, I have no insights on the matter. Y’see, I’m a Canuck living in the U.S. so they don’t exactly target my kind for votes. Though I guess they could always hit me up for some cash.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Haha… can you imagine that happening in M’sia? The politicians probably have to pay people to come hear them speak and also feed them!
June 1st, 2007 at 7:21 pm
That’s the way it works in the US as fund raising is a major part of a presidential campaign (which are almost always incredibly expensive to run). Candidates can opt to receive matching funds from public coffers if they want to, but that would then limit the amount of money they can spend campaigning. That hampers them in the long run, especially in this particular campaign cycle which has started so much earlier than usual.
Not a perfect system, but because funds are well-accounted for (well, almost), it’s certainly eons ahead of our system where you have no idea where the money being used by political parties has come from. RM30 million campaign in Ijok anyone?
Having seen videos of Obama’s speeches though, I certainly wouldn’t mind having to pony up $25 to see him speak.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:40 pm
KG - that was exactly what Lokes said lol.
Well, one thing’s for sure. Politics is entertainment, particularly here, if nowhere else in the world!
Now, do I go for John Mayer or Barack Obama? Decisions, decisions!