The presidential money pyre

Failed presidential bids are an incredible waste of money.

Scratch that. Let me amend that statement: All presidential bids are an incredible, monumental, even titanic waste of money.

Thanks, I feel better now.

It's February. Almost a full year before New Hampshirites (New Hampshirians? New Hampsters?) brave the cold to go to the polls in the nation's first 2008 presidential primary.

And yet if you've watched the news lately you might think the general election is right around the corner. There are so many U.S. senators declaring candidacy, you're more likely to find a Senate quorum in an Iowa barn than in the U.S. Capitol.

And it's not just the big boys who are in the race.

"Household names" like Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Connecticut, Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa and Rep. Duncan Hunter, D-Calif., all believe they've got what it takes to be the next commander in chief.

And that's great. I'm not going to disparage any candidate who has the guts to run for the highest office.

I just have one question: Who is giving these people money?

During the last election their were a good number of "also runs" who left the race with nothing more to show for it than some face time on cable TV or maybe an appearance on "Saturday Night Live." Yet somehow they were able to swindle huge amounts of cash from their supporters.

Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-St. Louis, who abandoned the race one day after the Iowa caucuses, burned through $21.1 million in donations and federal funds.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, who never got more than six percent of the vote in a primary, still found a way to spend $13.1 million.

Gov. Howard Dean, D-Vermont, briefly anointed as the Democratic front-runner before spiraling out of control, spent $52.1 million. Nearly all of Dean's money came from private donors and much of that was straight from the pockets of college students who donated online.

Does any of this make sense?

We rant and rave about the salaries of professional athletes, but at least they have to sing for their supper. Nobody would give the great Albert Pujols $15 million to play only the first 10 games of a season and then give up. Or, an even better analogy: Would you donate money to light hitting Aaron Miles for his campaign to win the MVP award? You'd have to be nuts.

And yet people line up year after year to give away hard earned money to candidates who haven't got a shot.

Mind you, I'm not advocating donating money to front-runners, either.

The 2004 presidential campaign was a monetary black hole. From beginning to end it cost Americans slightly more than $1 billion.

Take a moment and swill that number around. That's an average of $3.33 for every man, woman and child in the United States And what did we get for it? I'd call it a really expensive soap opera.

The waste is getting worse. The $1 billion cost was about 56 percent higher than the 2000 campaign. It was more than double the totals from 1996.

Observers now believe the "entry fee" for serious candidates in 2008 will be $100 million and the total expenditures will climb well north of the $1 billion yardstick.

I could effortlessly tick off hundreds of worthier causes. For instance, experts estimate $4 billion could contain the spread of AIDS in Africa. Why not save your money, donate it to charity, spend it at the mall? Anything rather than give to wasteful, ego-driven presidential candidates.

TJ Greaney is a staff reporter for the Southeast Missourian.