i'm not really writing about this so much as writing about the thought that crossed my mind as i read that article. clinton may be a special case. usually the winning candidate doesn't pay the debts of his fallen opponent. so put clinton aside for a moment when you read the rest of this post.
political campaigns that lose often have debt, sometimes quite a lot of it. the debt gets paid by donations. that is, the former candidate goes out to fund raise to pay off the campaign debt. (just when the candidate thought the ordeal was finally over!)
but here's the question: who donates to pay off a failed candidate's debt? i can understand donating to a campaign to support the candidate in reaching some political office. i've done it myself. but i've only done it because i think my money might help get that person elected. i don't have any personal investment in the candidate as a person. i just want to help someone achieve a position so that they will do stuff that i want people in that position to do.
which is why donating to a failed candidate to pay off their debt makes no sense to me. donating to failed candidates doesn't help bring about any change in society. if they're not in office, they can't vote the way you want them to. so why pay money to someone who, not only didn't win, but also spent too much money all for a failed bid? who are these people who donate to pay off campaign debt? how do candidates ever manage to find enough people to donate to even make a dent in their debt?
