Though there are many people who donate money to a single political candidate, there are many who donate to multiple, opposing candidates as well. For example, according to the Washington Examiner, fashion designer Michael Kors has "donated to both the Obama and Romney campaigns." The article goes on to explain this phenomenon, that is not unique to Kors, as people "hedging their presidential bets." This terminology seems to classify donations to presidential candidates, not as a simple contribution in hopes of purchasing victory for a given candidate, but rather as an investment with risk and a potential return.
Many intelligent people might assert that anyone who donates money to two opposing candidates is irrational. After all, if you're just trying to increase a candidate's chance of winning, wouldn't you be hurting your own cause by donating to the opposing candidate as well? The answer to this specific question is yes, but there is another reason to donate, as alluded to by this article, and that is to try to influence the actions of the winning candidate. The potential return on this "investment" is the change one's contribution may make in a candidate's positions, while the risk is obviously the chance that the candidate whose positions the "investment" was intended to influence may not even end up office. So, Kors, by donating to both candidates, eliminates the risk of not donating to the winning candidate, ensuring that whoever wins will have received some of his donations in an attempt to sway their position closer to his own.
No comments:
Post a Comment