The story of America’s presidential elections from 1789 is somewhat like a textbook of money financing and spending. There is beyond any doubt that the need for money in a modern U.S. political campaign is pervasive and grows with each cycle. Every stage of the whole election process and each tactic employable for effective and efficient message delivery require money. Therefore, concerns over financing presidential elections have become the focus of attention, which is long centered on the enduring issues of high campaign costs and its influence on election results. Money is, in short, the fuel that drives the engine of election campaigns[1]. Hence, is it a good thing to spend so much money on presidential elections? Of course not all observers view this issue with alarm. Many insist we do not spend too much on elections and maybe do not spend enough. But that may not be the case. Although the practices of rising campaign costs were presumably legal, they may have violated the law’s spirit. It is better to view this issue with alarm and find alternatives to reduce the spending and help to improve efficiency and effectiveness of the money usage. The following paper is trying to chase down the sticking point of the above-mentioned perennial problem and propose alternatives, which here means the Internet, to help tp reduce the ever-increasing campaign costs by analyzing the 2000 Election between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
 

[1] See Contemporary World Series ,Voting in America----A Reference Handbook, (Robert E. Diclerico), ABC-CLIO, Inc,2004, p61.

If you want to read the full article, you need to ask for permission from Sekou ( ). If you have the permission, you can login now.