See How They Run: How Important is Money in a Presidential Campaign?

Clearly money is important, but could it be over rated? Forbes.com seems to think so in a recent article at its website. The article, entitled "Money Doesn't Win Presidential Elections," is built on several assumptions:

1) A truly wide open field. With so many candidates starting this early, there is plenty of opportunity for other players to come onto the scene and change the landscape.

2) The role of the Internet changes everything. The web has become a great tool for raising money and its role should expand in the future. Many who become major fundraisers on the web will not attract people or money in the "real world," however, having an affect on the actual election.

3) Early primaries are forcing candidates to raise money at record levels, especially California's move to February 5th. This state will require big money in order to reach this large population.

4) Faltering front-runners. Candidates that are bringing in the cash and showing strong numbers today could be an after thought before 2007 comes to a close. As candidates start campaigning earlier, more money will come in quicker, having an impact on the previous records. Never have so many people been running for office so early, in the history of the Republic. This cannot help but impact the flow of dollars. The timing of the arrival of those dollars, in particular.

When I think of the power of money, I think of Phil Gramm's failed Presidential campaign of 1996 which brought in a great deal of money and early buzz, but found itself a mere after thought in the end. Money is important, just ask both the candidates with it and those who wish they had it. But money alone doesn't mean instant success in the turbulent world of politics.