$ Obscenity

Obscenity: 1. the state or quality of being obscene.
Obscene: 1. offensive to one's feelings, or to pervailing notions, of modesty or decency; 2. disgusting; repulsive
--Webster's New World Dictionary

In today's Tennessean there is an article on Tennessee U.S. Senate candidate Bob Corker's $1.745 million contribution of his own money to his campaign (Corker gives almost $2M to campaign). The article states that it is unlikely Corker will be able to treat this as a loan and repay himself from political contributions.

The rest of this post is done under the following assumptions: 1) Corker will not be repaid directly from his campaign funds, thus this is an expense for him. 2) Because these large personal donations are common, the statements herein are not made in regards to Mr. Corker personally but apply to all candidates in general terms .

These large donations just seem obscene to me and are disgusting and repulsive in their implications. Bear with me please. A U.S. Senator makes $165,200 per year and has a term of six years. Using a 28% tax rate on the cash flows, I present a summary analysis of his senatorial cash flows below. Any revenue from endeavors already in place when elected are not relevant to the analysis, only income derived directly from being a senator is pertinent:

** The candidate earns a -14% return on the $1.745M investment if his only senatorial revenue is from his senate salary (read negative 14%).

** To breakeven (0% return), the candidate must derive an additional $125,608 per year benefit from being a senator beyond his $165K salary.

** To earn an 8% return on his $1.745M investment, the candidate must derive and additional $212,206 per year benefit from being senator beyond his $165K salary. (8% is a reasonable expected return on an investment; general rule is long term returns are: Bonds ~8%, stocks ~12%)

The implications? We are either electing candidates who have little financial sense (good evidence for this actually), or we are electing candidates who know the financial reward for spending millions is worth the risk. And, that financial reward has to come from some source other than their senate salary that is direct result of being a senator. Thus impying a less than forthright revenue stream.

If a candidate claims to be making such a financial sacrifice to serve his country, his constituents, etc., then the candidate is at best misguided and at worst dishonest. If one wants to serve, then there are much more efficient and beneficial uses of their millions. They would do more service donating to homeless shelters, children's foundations, the arts, hospitals, churches, United Way--pick one. Millions of dollars to any charity has to be better than spending the same to get elected.

Now some candidates, Bill Frist for example, can afford to spend millions as a donation to serve without affecting his other charitable outflow and without being bothered by the negative return. The question in this case is can such an independently wealthy candidate truly represent his constituency? He or she certainly has little in common with the majority. Certainly little in common with me, that is for sure.

Now I am faced with the problem of who do I elect? Someone has to serve. I think I would lean toward the candidate who is not willing to spend beyond reason to land a $165K job. But there are so many other questions one could grill me on based on my statements here.

Bottom line for me, at present, is that spending millions upon millions across this country just to get a few humans elected seems like a obscene waste of God given resources that could be better used elsewhere. It reinforces my growing disgust with politices.

What are your opinions?