Both Tennessee and Georgia will elect a governor next month to replace current officeholders who are prevented by term limits to run again. The absence of an incumbent has prompted a no-holds-barred, political battle in each state. One result is that money likely will play a far greater role in determining who will be governor in each state than platform and policy. That is unfair to residents and voters worried about the future of their state. It also distorts and undermines the election process.
Money is playing a major role in the Tennessee gubernatorial race to succeed Phil Bredesen. Republican front-runner Bill Haslam has a lot of it and has spent it freely. He’s already invested millions from his own pocket during the GOP primary in which he defeated two well-known opponents and in the general election. He’s apparently willing to spend more to augment funds from outside donors. He denies that he’s trying to buy the election, though one can understand why Tennessee residents might think otherwise – given the millions Haslam has spent so far to keep his name and his candidacy before the public.
The investment apparently has paid off. For the moment at least, he’s won a relatively comfortable lead over Mike McWherter, the Democratic nominee who earned the endorsement of this page. Still, those looking to the Haslam TV ads for insight into how he will move the state forward and how he will pay to do so it will find it tough going. There’s a lot of flash in the presentations, but there’s relatively little substance.
McWherter’s ads pointedly question Haslam’s priorities and background, but they do provide at least some ideas about the Democrat’s platform and policies. McWherter, who admits to being financially comfortable, doesn’t have the personal resources of Haslam, whose family founded the Pilot chain of truck stops. He says his fundraising efforts lag behind that of Haslam, a fact borne out by reports which indicate the amount he’s raised and the amount he has on hand to spend to be significantly lower than that of the Haslam campaign. That, of course, limits his ability to present his message to the public.
The campaign between Nathan Deal, the GOP nominee, and Ray Barnes, the Democratic flagbearer, to succeed Sonny Perdue in Georgia involves less money than that being spent in Tennessee, but that’s relative. The Georgia candidates already have spent several million dollars between them in a race in which Deal has a lead in polls. They both say they’ll spend more in coming days in what already is an increasingly distasteful campaign. Indeed, the campaign’s nastiness and personal attacks likely will escalate.
The public in both states deserves better. It should insist that ads provide information and insight, not invective. It should demand, as well, that an accounting of who or what groups are bankrolling the candidates and their ads be made public. Until it does, money will continue to pervert politics and to diminish the role of the voter.