It's only a metaphor

In the 2016 Presidential election the billionaire Donald Trump won, after spending approximately only half the budget of his opponent.

Relatively unknown billionaire candidate Tom Steyer spent $123 million, approximately 20 times what relatively unknown Amy Klobuchar spent, yet still won fewer votes than her in the 2020 New Hampshire primary.

Billionaire Clive Palmer spent $60 million throughout the country on the 2019 Australian federal election and won neither a senate seat nor even one of the 151 lower house seats.

And on the ethical side, one wonders where there is a wrong.

In Australia, the scrutiny of business regulation is exceedingly strong. Ignore one of the many wage awards when paying your workers and you will be prosecuted. The same for false advertising, ignoring environmental safeguards or health and safety in the workplace, discrimination in employment etc. But in marketing, spend more money than your opponents in advertising or consultants, and the government cares not. Why should it?

As long as it is your money to spend in business or politics what is wrong with what you spend? No matter how much you advertise, the public is not going to end up buying your pre-fab house to live in, or you to represent them in parliament, if the ad does not impress them, no matter how often they see it.

There is a certain irony in the claim made by his main opponent, Bernie Sanders, that the wealthy Michael Bloomberg is attempting to buy the election. The platform of Sanders includes spread-the-wealth policies such as Medicare for all, free college education, forgiveness on medical and student debt and expanding Social Security benefits. By no stretch of the imagination is he offering the voters an austerity budget.

So how is this not an attempt to buy votes? At least with Bloomberg the bribe he is allegedly offering is his own money. Bernie has the temerity to bribe you with not his, but taxpayer's money – that is your money.