George Lang has raised more than 11 Times the Amount of his Rivals: Why fundraising is important in our republic

In the end, it’s the voters who show up to vote on election day and decide who wins an election or loses. Perception can reflect reality so anything can and does happen, but in the three-way race between candidates for the 4th Ohio Senate seat in the upcoming March primary there is only one clear frontrunner and that is George Lang. Campaign donations are an important indicator as to whether or not a politician has the ability to generate money from the donor groups which is important leverage in Columbus politics when weight behind a bill or proposal is needed. The way politicians measure each other is in just such a manner because they all know how hard it is to do. Its one thing to appeal to those all important voters on election day, but even more than that, how to appeal to the type of people who write thousand dollar checks when elections are still 6 months or even a year away, and not lose their souls in the process. Of the three people running for that senate seat in the 4th District, only George Lang was able to do anything substantial raising over $200,000, 11 times more than the other two, which says a lot about the value and true potential he has to offer to that seat.

The way the news outlets like to report things, they like the idea of “democracy” where everything is a horserace of popularity and everyone has a chance to win, even the unprepared nurse who decides on a whim to run for some office. It feeds the Cinderella complex that if anybody would like to, they can just decide to run and win an office and do some good work in the name of a democratic process, and they like that belief until it doesn’t work out the way they’d like, such as in the case of President Trump. In truth, we have a republic and the representatives we put into office need to be skilled, knowledgeable, and tenacious. Candidates shouldn’t be able to buy their way into an office, but they do need to show that they can generate political interest in their platforms even when most people in the world are thinking about everything else but an election. It is one of the hardest things in the world to do is to get on the phone and ask business leaders in your community for a few thousand dollars, then go out into the community and do good work that is honest, and George Lang has shown time and time again that he can do that. People not so skilled will look at that process and say its corrupt, because essentially, they can’t do it. That’s what Ding Dong Lee Wong will say as his old West Chester trustee rival George Lang outraises him at every turn. Ding Dong Wong was only able to raise $6,300 for instance, with the largest donation being a measly $500. For the person who wrote that check that might have seemed like a lot of money, but in the way that other politicians measure the viability of a peer in Columbus, its weak and shows that the office holder does not have support of people in their community all through the year, when there aren’t elections.

Campaign donations are a kind of vote all their own, not so much for the general election, but for the reach a candidate has across their entire base, particularly business leaders who are often overlooked by the general media as part of an undemocratic process. For instance, they might poise the question of why Ginni Ragan gave George Lang a check for $13,300 in January, what does she want with the money—as if the presentation of the check was a favor of some kind that George would owe her, which supersedes the general voter. What nobody talks about is that people who are in such a financial position contribute those types of funds without a lot of expectations attached, it is their way of betting on the right representation who they think will protect their values in politics and they see it as just another form of a vote. It’s a lot of money to small minded reporters who want to keep the dialog of democracy defined in their limited vision, but it ignores the aspects of politics that are way beyond their comprehension. A politician who can raise a lot of money gives them more weight on the floor of a republic form of government because it represents a kind of mastery that many of them have not yet overcome, the hard task of asking for a campaign donation for an election nobody is thinking about when the person on the other end of the phone could think of a million other things to do with that few thousand dollars.

Yet the news outlets depend on that money, they need candidates to take out adds on their airwaves, in their newspapers—consultants, lawyers, and every kind of parasite known to mankind that lives off the crumbs that falls from politicians in the unsaid bid to show how much money they were able to raise and therefore, how strong they would be as a representative on the congressional floor. While its true that Trump nearly funded most of his campaign during the presidential run, it was the amount of money he was able to raise over the last three years for the GOP that brought the party in behind him. And in order to get that money, he had to generate a lot of excitement that filled the coffers and gave him the political leverage to use that money to continue to sell his message which people who contributed wanted to be a part of. Big donors or smaller ones see campaign donations as an investment more often than the media would report.

For instance, the media would like to poise Candice Keller as a real threat to George Lang, because she’s a woman, and that if elected her many scandals would follow her and the press could then have a field day. But in reality, she only managed to raise $12,135. Most of the other money she has been working with were donations that she gave to her own campaign. That might buy adds and billboards, along with yard signs, but the people in Columbus know the truth, that Candice doesn’t have support from her own community when she can’t get on the phone and ask for the big checks. Therefore, what pull could she hope to garner for a big new bill she wants to get passed, or use her vote for leverage to change something she doesn’t like. The power on the legislative floor comes more from just a voice and a vote, it comes from the stout presence of the ability to raise money, because that is a measure that defines worth in a republic.

Campaign donations are our way of protecting our republic from the mob rule of a democracy, which for many decades now has been the mantra of the media. They even have Republicans saying that we must protect our “democracy” which means that a majority rules by simple vote and that rules can be changed if only enough emotion is spent to sway public opinion. That is what is happening currently in Virginia over the gun rights issue there now that Democrats control all branches of government. The true measure of worth in a strong republic is how well a candidate can generate value for their platform between election cycles and that is the strength of George Lang and why its important that it’s the third highest amount of all people running for senate in Ohio. To other politicians that is real power and mastery, and the much important leverage that a real player can bring to that seat. That might run against the sentiments of some Journal News reporter or television broadcaster cheering for some socialist slide into a democracy, but it’s the true value of a political position where all aspects can be united and the politician can properly represent their platform authentically. A cheater or a low life is not going to be able to raise that kind of money with all the transparency of our modern age. George Lang is top class in every category, and that’s why he was able to outraise his rivals more than 11 times over. And why he’s the only viable candidate for the 4th Senate Seat in Ohio in 2020.

Rich Hoffman