Is big money in politics a sign of excess?

Flickr user Tracy O

Makes the political world go 'round.

Featured Topic | Posted 35 weeks 4 days ago

Is big money in politics a sign of excess?

With eight months to go before the U.S. presidential election, the candidates have raised almost $1 billion to fund their campaigns -- more than the size of the economies of several African countries. The unusually long race for the White House -- which began in earnest more than a year ago -- has been a cash bonanza, especially for Democrats who are breaking all records. Republicans lag behind but still rake in tens of millions and have time to make up ground in the money game between now and the November 4 national election. Does money have too large a role in American politics?

Ben likes: More money, no problem

David Weigel/Reason

Taking the money out of campaigns is supposed to clean up politics; the fact that 2008 might become the first $1 billon presidential campaign is considered a sign of a broken democracy. In late February former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack dropped out of the Democrats' race and made a glum tour of the pundit circuit, bemoaning how he had to end his quest for a promotion because he couldn't raise money. The implication: An unassuming Midwestern politician who was polling third or fourth in his own state, long before any TV ads started running, deserved as much money as Hillary Clinton. And if taxpayers had to provide that money, so be it.

This is, to put it bluntly, sour grapes. Another governor from a small state, Vermont's Howard Dean, surged far ahead of his 2004 rivals in fund raising simply because the threshold for donations had gone up and the Internet made it inexpensive-almost free, compared to the costs of direct mail or fundraisers-to reach out to donors.

Joel likes: Making elections fair

Ari Berman/The Nation

Illinois's senior Senator, Dick Durbin--the number-two Democrat in the Senate--has introduced the first bipartisan bill to publicly finance federal races, modeled after successful "clean election" laws at the state and local levels. Durbin's bill won't stop the presidential money chase. But it would transform the way Congressional races are fought and won, laying down the most significant campaign finance reforms to date. Obama has signed on as a co-sponsor, calling the bill "a very intelligent approach."

The proposal is quite simple: If Congressional candidates raise enough $5 donations to prove they are viable and competitive (that number is 11,500 in Durbin's home state, according to a formula in the bill), they can qualify for public funds in the primary and general election. The need to spend hours cold-calling rich donors and shmoozing with lobbyists and CEOs at closed-door fundraisers would drastically diminish. Durbin knows this world well. As a top Democrat, he has to collect money for his colleagues as well as for his own re-election race in '08. "I can't tell you how much time we spend fundraising," he says. "People would be surprised, if not shocked," if they knew.