Cross-posted from Blue Hampshire. A repeat of sorts for Blue News Tribune readers, but more organized and coherent.
According to Cokie Roberts, the lieutenant governor of Alaska cited the cost of the investigations of Sarah Palin as a justification for her resignation. In other words, if she is not governor, the state saves money. That reflects a regrettable confusion. As we now know, Palin may broken the law. If you asked the lieutenant governor directly, “Should cost savings ever justify a failure to prosecute?”, surely he’d say no. But that’s what he said, in effect.
This diary began with my thought that Obama’s incredible fundraising proves that there is never a shortage of campaign resources. But I talked myself out of that, because:
– He was running for president.
– He was running for president when neither party had an incumbent or semi-incumbent (like a sitting VP) for the first time since … I forget. Maybe 1952.
– His early success made it a two-person race very quickly, so there was little competition for available money. People had only one choice to make, Clinton or Obama.
– He’s Barack Obama.
So forget that. But there is still considerable energy, and, properly motivated, that energy will pony up some considerable cash.
It is generally assumed that campaigns cost too much. This is true and not true. On the scale of American business, spending a billion to elect the leader of the free world is chump change. On the scale of individual citizens making a difference through their contributions, campaigns cost too much.
At times, I have considered devoting my entire blog to campaign finance issues. That would have merit, but two things stop me: one, I think other people are doing good work and not getting recognized. The National Voting Rights Institute (www.nvri.org), now merged with another group, springs to mind.
Two, I don’t think the problem can be solved. The last major piece of reform was McCain-Feingold (Shays-Meehan in the House). Last year, one campaign found a way around McCain-Feingold: John McCain’s.
But picking on McCain aside, we can’t get the money out of anything. How would we ever get it out of politics?
Atrios made the following observation late last month:
Those Noises From The Left I Do Not Hear Them
Yes, we know.It’s a weird phenomenon, not limited to [Dianne] Feinstein. Noises from the right are all that can be heard in congressional offices.
Feinstein, consciously or not, fears well-funded right-wing opponents. But in recent years, left-wingers have been well-funded too.
To state the obvious, do “well-funded” and “left-winger” belong in the same sentence?
The acid test will be whether we see campaign finance talk coming out of the GOP. For now, they can’t reconcile it with the rest of their philosophy, but they may will change their tune if they slide into being unable to compete.
If we do nothing else, we have to put an end to bundling. Maybe everybody here knows the practice, but for the sake of any lurkers, bundling is the practice of collecting donations and “bundling” them into a pool for the candidate. Though this is an efficient, potent weapon, it is a breeding ground for abuse. There have already been cases of people donating thousands of dollars in the name of their four-year-old.
Barack Obama had an opportunity to avoid bundling, at least in the general election, and passed on it. I can’t say I blame him. We can’t realistically expect either party to lay down this arm. But maybe — maybe — both parties could lay it down at once.
So now what?
