OPINION:
Mitt Romney, the Utah senator and former business executive, is merely “rich.” When the then-Massachusetts Republican ran for president against Barack Obama in 2012, he was estimated to be worth around $200 million. President Trump is also only “rich,” with a net worth somewhere in the $3 billion range, according to various estimates. Tom Steyer, the San Francisco hedge fund titan who is also running for president, is similarly situated, worth about $1.5 billion (yet he can’t seem to find a decent tie to buy for himself).
Michael Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor and owner of the eponymous media and financial data empire, on the other hand, is not just rich. He is mega-rich. He is feed-a-small-country rich. His wealth is downright unfathomable, standing at north of $60 billion. The country of Latvia’s gross domestic product, by comparison, is estimated to be at about $30 billion. Let’s just say that’s a whole lot of Bloomberg terminals.
Mr. Bloomberg, currently mounting a run for the Democratic nomination for president, is rising in the polls, appearing to surpass former Vice President Joe Biden as the candidate of supposed Democratic moderation. Soon, it seems, the race will come down to Vermont Sen. Bernard Sanders and Mr. Bloomberg.
How is the charisma-challenged, diminutive (as President Trump keeps reminding us), holder of unpopular positions doing it? It may have something to do with that $60 billion fortune.
“Michael R. Bloomberg put more than $200 million of his personal fortune into his presidential campaign by the end of December, with the overwhelming bulk of that sum going to a mammoth advertising campaign on television and online, according to Mr. Bloomberg’s first campaign finance disclosure with the Federal Election Commission,” The New York Times reported. His television advertisements are ubiquitous. You can’t watch a YouTube video without seeing a pre-scroll ad for the candidate. And he’s also building a massive, well-paid campaign staff.
“Entry-level field organizing work for Mr. Bloomberg, for example, pays $72,000 annually — nearly twice what other campaigns have offered. In under 12 weeks, Mr. Bloomberg’s operation has grown to a staff of thousands, with more than 125 offices around the country and a roster of slick events featuring swag, drinks and canapes,” The New York Times added.
There has long been a debate about campaign funding. How much does it matter? Does money determine who wins? For a while, signs have pointed to no. Jeb Bush’s campaign was well-endowed, yet crashed and burned spectacularly. Hillary Clinton wildly outspent Donald Trump in the 2016 campaign. Remind us who won that race?
But Mr. Bloomberg’s example seems to be demonstrating something else. At a certain level, it appears, money does matter. He is spending so much — and so much more than any of his opponents, including Mr. Trump — that he is building name recognition and popularity. It turns out you really can stun voters (at least those who watch television) into submission.
In many ways, Mr. Bloomberg seems uniquely ill-positioned for this year’s presidential campaign. He is a plutocrat in a class-warfare, populist age. He is anti-gun and pro-untramelled immigration. He is open to Social Security cuts. He is a proud nanny stater, seeking to regulate people’s lives down to the size of the sodas they consume.
Yes, he’s all that — but he also has $60 billion. And as we’re learning, at some level, money matters.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.