The candidate of the money is not what we think. Hillary Clinton was massively mobilized elites, especially financial. Donald Trump was able to use his personal fortune, but the Republican candidate failed to win the favor of wealthy conservative donors such as the Koch brothers or the casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, who nevertheless support the Republicans at the local level . Even Bernie Sanders, unsuccessful candidate in the Democratic primary, garnered almost as much money as it ($ 228 million).
 |
| Vincent Michelot |
Vincent Michelot is a professor of political history of the United States at Sciences-Po Lyon. To Match, it illuminates the complexity of the relationship between money and overseas policy.
Newsoftheworld.top. Why is there a difference so marked between the amounts collected by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?
Vincent Michelot. Donald Trump has made a strategic choice since the primaries. It is based both on social networks and the dissemination of its message through a coverage "free" by the press. This is one reason why his rhetoric is often one of provocation. Unlike Clinton, he has little invested in the purchase of advertising space in the media, building on the old slogan "All publicity is good publicity." Moreover, his campaign is also organized into very large rallies which also offer him media coverage at little cost.
Donald Trump is it the first to employ this strategy?
It is an innovative choice compared to past campaigns. Donald Trump is the first politician to reach this stage of a presidential campaign with such patronymic prior recognition. Trump brand was already known by the vast majority of Americans. It has therefore not had to build a name in the public. In January 2004, the early primary, the name of John Kerry, the future Democratic candidate, was recognized by 10% of Americans.
It is an innovative choice compared to past campaigns. Donald Trump is the first politician to reach this stage of a presidential campaign with such patronymic prior recognition. Trump brand was already known by the vast majority of Americans. It has therefore not had to build a name in the public. In January 2004, the early primary, the name of John Kerry, the future Democratic candidate, was recognized by 10% of Americans.
Read: In 1991, Donald Trump
Hillary Clinton does not as she enjoys a strong reputation?
Yes, but she chose -as usual, I dare say- a classic strategy, the same as Obama in 2012, which is to buy spots in the advertising space and to invest heavily in the mobilization of field operations ( "Get out the vote"). Trump, he says not to believe not to micro-targeting of voters and the construction of gigantic databases. He delegates this task to the Republican Party (especially in states where there is also an important senatorial election) focusing on an impressive series of mass meetings. This is clearly a campaign "low-tech".
Yes, but she chose -as usual, I dare say- a classic strategy, the same as Obama in 2012, which is to buy spots in the advertising space and to invest heavily in the mobilization of field operations ( "Get out the vote"). Trump, he says not to believe not to micro-targeting of voters and the construction of gigantic databases. He delegates this task to the Republican Party (especially in states where there is also an important senatorial election) focusing on an impressive series of mass meetings. This is clearly a campaign "low-tech".
How does the campaign finance in the United States?
Until 2004, there was a system of public funding of presidential campaigns. It has not disappeared, but it was gradually abandoned by the candidates. Ceilings imposed on them are so low that they no longer corresponded to the actual costs of campaigns. Between 60 and 70% of the amounts collected are spent on the purchase of advertising space. In key states of this country, such as Florida, Ohio, Virginia and Pennsylvania, voters are watered TV commercials, purchased a very expensive market. Teams candidates acquire at the last minute, when their diffusion is the most expensive and without the benefit of wholesale rates. It is estimated that between 80 and 90% of political TV ads are negative, their purpose is not to present a program, but to criticize the opponent. Surveys have shown that if voters had heard the same message five times without any response given, they would tend to believe that the accusation is true. The contested candidate must answer. This generates an escalation: the closer the vote, more advertising is needed to respond to the opponent, the more expensive. We must respond to the same media at the same time and to deprogram at the last minute traditional commercial advertisements booked long.
Until 2004, there was a system of public funding of presidential campaigns. It has not disappeared, but it was gradually abandoned by the candidates. Ceilings imposed on them are so low that they no longer corresponded to the actual costs of campaigns. Between 60 and 70% of the amounts collected are spent on the purchase of advertising space. In key states of this country, such as Florida, Ohio, Virginia and Pennsylvania, voters are watered TV commercials, purchased a very expensive market. Teams candidates acquire at the last minute, when their diffusion is the most expensive and without the benefit of wholesale rates. It is estimated that between 80 and 90% of political TV ads are negative, their purpose is not to present a program, but to criticize the opponent. Surveys have shown that if voters had heard the same message five times without any response given, they would tend to believe that the accusation is true. The contested candidate must answer. This generates an escalation: the closer the vote, more advertising is needed to respond to the opponent, the more expensive. We must respond to the same media at the same time and to deprogram at the last minute traditional commercial advertisements booked long.
An advertisement in Spanish funded Priorities USA, a Super Pac supporting Hillary Clinton. The film recalls the words of Donald Trump hostile to the Latino minority.
Where do they get the funding?
There are two main sources. There is a ceiling on the amount that individuals or legal entities may pay directly to the campaign account of the candidate. But candidates have created super-Pacs (political action committees), which are less constrained. Since the decision "Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission" made by the Supreme Court in 2010, these super-Pacs have hardly any limits to the contributions they can receive. The only prohibition that has been preserved is that of not coordinate their activities with the candidate's campaign, a legal fiction of the hypocrites.
There are two main sources. There is a ceiling on the amount that individuals or legal entities may pay directly to the campaign account of the candidate. But candidates have created super-Pacs (political action committees), which are less constrained. Since the decision "Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission" made by the Supreme Court in 2010, these super-Pacs have hardly any limits to the contributions they can receive. The only prohibition that has been preserved is that of not coordinate their activities with the candidate's campaign, a legal fiction of the hypocrites.
Could this really possible?
Of course not. The super-Pacs are not independent. They are often domiciled in the same building as the official campaign, some employees move between the two entities. All lawyers consider this ban artificial and inapplicable.
Of course not. The super-Pacs are not independent. They are often domiciled in the same building as the official campaign, some employees move between the two entities. All lawyers consider this ban artificial and inapplicable.
Billionaire George Soros has never explained what he expected in return for his donations to Democrats
What do the donors in exchange for their support?
Again, this is a form of hypocrisy. Sometimes very important funds, tens of millions of dollars were collected. It is not possible to identify precisely what donors expect in return, otherwise it would be corruption. But the generous contributors to the Republican Party await further deregulation, to be released from regulatory shackles, while those of the Democratic Party have multiple interests. Billionaire George Soros has never explained what he expected in return for these gifts. After the election, they will obviously be easier to have access to the highest levels of the state. However, it will not be direct links can be established between legislative proposals and donations, which would be illegal.
Again, this is a form of hypocrisy. Sometimes very important funds, tens of millions of dollars were collected. It is not possible to identify precisely what donors expect in return, otherwise it would be corruption. But the generous contributors to the Republican Party await further deregulation, to be released from regulatory shackles, while those of the Democratic Party have multiple interests. Billionaire George Soros has never explained what he expected in return for these gifts. After the election, they will obviously be easier to have access to the highest levels of the state. However, it will not be direct links can be established between legislative proposals and donations, which would be illegal.
Donald Trump in meeting in Baton Rouge (Louisiana), in February. Photo: Jonathan Bachman / Reuters
Does the one who raises the most money automatically whoever wins?
No. The first proof is Jeb Bush, who began his campaign of Republican primary with $ 100 million in the bank. Everyone then thought he had killed this primary election before it even starts. Money does not have the political happiness. It should be used intelligently. On 8 November, we will know what strategy was winning, although this factor can not explain by itself a victory.
No. The first proof is Jeb Bush, who began his campaign of Republican primary with $ 100 million in the bank. Everyone then thought he had killed this primary election before it even starts. Money does not have the political happiness. It should be used intelligently. On 8 November, we will know what strategy was winning, although this factor can not explain by itself a victory.
Donald Trump seems to have a foil effect on conservative billionaires, yet traditional donors of the Republican Party. Why?
They never took Donald Trump seriously, they have no personal affinity with him.His violent personality, abrasive, unpredictable and vulgar repels. They find that it is unreliable and does not represent conservative ideas they defend. These great fortunes are, for example, skeptical of protectionism that defends the Republican candidate. They see it as a threat to free trade and have therefore decided to postpone all their efforts on the parliamentary elections because they do not have long believed in the victory of Donald Trump. Rational, these businessmen have preferred to invest in winnable election ensuring the victory of the Congress elected even an opposition to Clinton administration.
They never took Donald Trump seriously, they have no personal affinity with him.His violent personality, abrasive, unpredictable and vulgar repels. They find that it is unreliable and does not represent conservative ideas they defend. These great fortunes are, for example, skeptical of protectionism that defends the Republican candidate. They see it as a threat to free trade and have therefore decided to postpone all their efforts on the parliamentary elections because they do not have long believed in the victory of Donald Trump. Rational, these businessmen have preferred to invest in winnable election ensuring the victory of the Congress elected even an opposition to Clinton administration.
Our reporter aboard the aircraft Hillary Clinton in early September.
The Does Russia has been able to contribute in one way or another to finance Trump?
I think not. Trump would have taken a monstrous risk because the law prohibits all forms of foreign funding. If Russia has affected the country, it is mainly through the supposed hacking the Democratic camp. Was it an attack ordered by the Russian government? No one is able to demonstrate, but suspicions are strong.
I think not. Trump would have taken a monstrous risk because the law prohibits all forms of foreign funding. If Russia has affected the country, it is mainly through the supposed hacking the Democratic camp. Was it an attack ordered by the Russian government? No one is able to demonstrate, but suspicions are strong.
Bernie Sanders had raised for the primary as much money as Donald Trump.What has he done?
Sanders spent very large sums at the end of his campaign, more than Clinton in some states. But we must remember that Sanders had financed his campaign without the super Pacs, which is not the case of Trump. By adding the money raised through these channels, the gap between Trump and Sanders is reduced.
Sanders spent very large sums at the end of his campaign, more than Clinton in some states. But we must remember that Sanders had financed his campaign without the super Pacs, which is not the case of Trump. By adding the money raised through these channels, the gap between Trump and Sanders is reduced.
Trump has mounted a kind of closed system: his campaign keeps her many societies, for example, for the leasing of aircraft or for some campaign events.Has it benefited the election to grow its business?
This is part of "exceptionalism Trump." This businessman has its own fleet of aircraft, it is the only politician at the head of a chain of hotels and several golf courses. Is it a surprise that organizes events in its hotels? No! He is his own client, in a way, but no rule prevents it. However, when it opened its new hotel in Washington as a candidate, just steps from the White House, a mix of genres was denounced. The problem is ethical, not legal. Ethics is not, I believe, his first concern.
This is part of "exceptionalism Trump." This businessman has its own fleet of aircraft, it is the only politician at the head of a chain of hotels and several golf courses. Is it a surprise that organizes events in its hotels? No! He is his own client, in a way, but no rule prevents it. However, when it opened its new hotel in Washington as a candidate, just steps from the White House, a mix of genres was denounced. The problem is ethical, not legal. Ethics is not, I believe, his first concern.
Before the final debate of the campaign duel on the tarmac at Las Vegas airport on 18 October. Trump's plane crosses that of Clinton. Photo: Lucy Nicholson / Reuters
If Trump drew much in his personal wealth, is it because he had no choice?
It was announced during the primaries to earmark $ 100 million of his fortune to his campaign. It has in fact spent much less. The idea that he would be independent of its generous donors while Clinton is in debt with respect to its donors is totally false. He still collected large sums and even if he would actually have $ 100 million of his personal fortune, it would represent only a small fraction of the total cost of the election.
It was announced during the primaries to earmark $ 100 million of his fortune to his campaign. It has in fact spent much less. The idea that he would be independent of its generous donors while Clinton is in debt with respect to its donors is totally false. He still collected large sums and even if he would actually have $ 100 million of his personal fortune, it would represent only a small fraction of the total cost of the election.
Trump has made his ability to finance his campaign only an electoral argument.US citizens they consider the funding of campaigns, as it is organized today a problem?
There is both a cynical resignation - "it's like this, it is extremely difficult to change the system "- and exasperation increasingly strong. This question, which Bernie Sanders made a campaign issue, concerned the progressive electorate. Hillary Clinton, financed by very large donations, yet denounces in his rallies jurisprudence "Citizens United" and promises of reform. She spends her time apologizing for having to play with the rules of the system. Among conservatives is developing a form of anti-parliamentarism on "all rotten."
There is both a cynical resignation - "it's like this, it is extremely difficult to change the system "- and exasperation increasingly strong. This question, which Bernie Sanders made a campaign issue, concerned the progressive electorate. Hillary Clinton, financed by very large donations, yet denounces in his rallies jurisprudence "Citizens United" and promises of reform. She spends her time apologizing for having to play with the rules of the system. Among conservatives is developing a form of anti-parliamentarism on "all rotten."
June 16, 2015, in the lobby of Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue in New York Donald Trump launches campaign.Since then, his campaign has done plenty to work its own companies. Photo: Sipa NY / Sipa
Have corruption scandals were revealed?
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has made decisions on funding, but no trial ever took place in which a candidate would have seen his campaign accounts invalidated, as the experienced in France.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has made decisions on funding, but no trial ever took place in which a candidate would have seen his campaign accounts invalidated, as the experienced in France.
How come he says?
The electoral law is so complex that a week is enough for a small battalion of highly creative lawyers to find a way around the law. The "Citizens United" decision is explained in part by the belief that money is freedom of expression ( "Money is speech"). This ideological position already appeared in 1976 in the judgment "Buckley vs Valeo." This notion, difficult to grasp in France, is a reality in the United States. The only way to get their message to voters is to buy advertising space for which a candidate will pay the same price as any private advertiser. On the other hand, define corruption is complex. When Sheldon Adelson gave $ 250 million to Republican campaigns, there is an unbearable appearance of corruption. Yet, the Supreme Court very narrowly defines corruption. It is therefore difficult to justify laws that limit the amounts that can be paid donors. Finally, "hydraulic theory of political money" prevails: like water seeping everywhere, money always finds a way to get to the election campaigns.
The electoral law is so complex that a week is enough for a small battalion of highly creative lawyers to find a way around the law. The "Citizens United" decision is explained in part by the belief that money is freedom of expression ( "Money is speech"). This ideological position already appeared in 1976 in the judgment "Buckley vs Valeo." This notion, difficult to grasp in France, is a reality in the United States. The only way to get their message to voters is to buy advertising space for which a candidate will pay the same price as any private advertiser. On the other hand, define corruption is complex. When Sheldon Adelson gave $ 250 million to Republican campaigns, there is an unbearable appearance of corruption. Yet, the Supreme Court very narrowly defines corruption. It is therefore difficult to justify laws that limit the amounts that can be paid donors. Finally, "hydraulic theory of political money" prevails: like water seeping everywhere, money always finds a way to get to the election campaigns.
October 11, Hillary Clinton arrived in Columbus, Ohio. Photo: Timothy A. Clary / AFP
What is your prognosis for next Tuesday's election?
If you had asked me a week ago, I would have responded Hillary Clinton. But since the revelations of FBI on the case of emails, the race has tightened. The election will be played on the selection of certain groups of voters. And white Republicans, graduates of higher education, who hate the man Trump, perhaps going to find this alleged scandal an excuse to vote for their personal interests. The mobilization of the Latino electorate will play an important role in Florida and Arizona, as well as that of African Americans in Pennsylvania or Ohio. Of the more than 22 million votes already cast by the early voting, Hillary Clinton has a slight advantage. But there can be surprises.
If you had asked me a week ago, I would have responded Hillary Clinton. But since the revelations of FBI on the case of emails, the race has tightened. The election will be played on the selection of certain groups of voters. And white Republicans, graduates of higher education, who hate the man Trump, perhaps going to find this alleged scandal an excuse to vote for their personal interests. The mobilization of the Latino electorate will play an important role in Florida and Arizona, as well as that of African Americans in Pennsylvania or Ohio. Of the more than 22 million votes already cast by the early voting, Hillary Clinton has a slight advantage. But there can be surprises.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий