Freedom from Blog

Don't call it a comeback . . . .

Sunday, June 24, 2007

I Actually Agree with Gen. Kristol

Watching Faux News Sunday--which, actually, is a low blow, because whatever one thinks of Faux News, in general, the Sunday morning show is probably the best one of the traditional format shows right now--this morning, I actually heard the good General say something I agreed with. The Faux All-Stars were discussing Michael Bloomberg, and Kristol asked, "Why are we talking about Michale Bloomberg? Because he's rich. [paraphrase] He can write a check and make himself a candidate. But a retired general can't do that." Kristol went on to say that the Bloomberg "phenomenon" (not his word) shows how campaign finance laws in the United States don't make much sense. The laws force everyone but the mega-rich to raise campaign funds in small amounts from thousands of donors, and that keeps many folks from running for office because, while they might want to serve, they don't want to do what you have to do to be able to serve.

Kristol asked why, if Bloomberg can fund his own campaign, why couldn't he instead fund someone else's? He stressed that, if the system were transparent, the influence of great wealth wouldn't be any different, whether Bloomberg was using his money or someone else's--it's the same money, the same interests.

I basically agree with that. If the problem is "big money," then Bloomberg shouldn't be allowed to use his own billion dollars to run for office. The Supreme Court has said that that (spending your own millions, or more) is protected, though. But if so, then does it make sense to say that only the billionaire is outside the campaign finance laws? In some ways, that's the worst of all situations, isn't it?

I suspect that Kristol and I disagree on the "best" fix of the situation. My guess is that he would prefer that all contribution caps be eliminated. I would prefer that the contribution caps would apply, even to one's own millions (or billions), or, even better, public financing (which won't, of course, happen). But I agree with Kristol that the billionaire's loophole points to the absurdity of the campaign finance laws at the present time.

2 Comments:

At 8:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I completely agree that this makes no sense. I'm in favor of no caps--that whole freedom of speech thing--but with instantaneous and full disclosure.

 
At 6:06 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Well, it's been written that "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." Leaving aside all attempts to explain the "eye of a needle" as a narrow gate in Jerusalem, the path for running for, and winning, the US presidency unfortunately works in a quite inverse fashion.

As for politics, there's nothing new under the sun. It's always been about the golden rule -- he who has the gold rules. That much hasn't changed.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home