Money is a distorting influence on the electoral process. Simply put, the need to raise ungodly amounts to cover the cost of running not only national by state level and local campaigns has resulted in a level of cynicism that should be unacceptable to the political classes.
Instead, we hear the candidates talk tough but then rush out to collect their checks, ignoring the rules that they say they support.
That’s what we’ve been watching over the last week or so, as the three remaining major candidates — Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and Republican John McCain — do a dance designed to raise questions about their opponents sincerity.
First, there was the criticism of Obama by McCain for Obama’s weasling out of a promise to abide by public financing rules for the general election, prompted by conditions Obama wanted placed on the agreement.
Not that McCain was playing it straight, either, as he attempted to back out of the public financing system after using it to secure a loan when his campaign was near bankruptcy. Add to this the series of stories detailing his connections to lobbyists and you have a picture of the clean-cut kid sneaking behind the school gym to get high.
Clinton, for her part, has been spending campaign cash like a drunken sailor,
Then there are the Democrats’ superdelegates — a group that has been receiving generous help from both Obama and Clinton over the last three years.
All of this creates an impression of conflict — the infamous quid pro quos — and hypocrisy, neithger of which leave our elected officials and democratic system looking particularly good.
As The New York Times writes today, “Americans deserve better.”
Taken together, these skirmishes over cash stand as an advertisement for change. Money has to be taken out fo the system without violating the First Amendment. The courts have ruled that money is the equivalent of speech, and while they are not the same it is money that allows speech to be heard in our culture. A hard cap on donations or spending would cross this line, I think, so some other system must be put in place.
Or the system that exists for public funding of the presidential race needs to be reinvigorated bu making sure there is enough cash available to run legitimate campaigns. In an era of tight budgets, this will not be popular. But the money saved on the kind of pay-to-play nonsense that plagues government could help offset the costs.
Plus, public funding should be extended beyond the presidential races to the states — to senators, Congressmen and state-level officials, even local officials.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
E-mail me by clicking here.
Hank Kalet 