Money In Politics

Money In Politics

The argument that "money follows the the message of the candidate and his
or her prospects for winning" is flawed. (JOHN SAMPLES, "'08: BIG TICKET," New
York Post, April 9, 2007) Suggesting that "voters were better informed about
candidates in the most expensive races" is also specious.
How many candidates reveal how their campaigns work? Listen to the
silence about the public relations industry and its influence on journalism.
What politicians speak unscripted truth?
It is deceptive to say that "Americans are free to support the candidates
and ideas of their choice." Samples himself says "party activists" didn't like
the weak candidate's message. Why should party activists decide what messages
will be heard? If messages remain censored how can voters decide on all of the
potential candidates and their messages?
Samples argues for a return to back room "party activist" deals. Why waste
the money if candidates can appear before the "party activists" and they can
tell us for whom we can vote?

Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM

'08: BIG TICKET
WHY A $1B PREZ RACE IS GOOD FOR DEMOCRACY
New York Post
By JOHN SAMPLES

April 9, 2007 -- PRESIDENTIAL hopefuls made headlines last week when Hillary
Clinton and Barack Obama both announced they'd raised record sums. On the
Republican side, Mitt Romney also raised more than $20 million in the first
quarter of 2007.

Shortly after the numbers became public, predictable laments began. The
presidential candidates supposedly had been bought by the highest bidder - they
were, in the words of a Washington Post editorial, "beholden to well-connected
financiers." But the truth is exactly the opposite.

In fact, money follows the message of a candidate and his or her prospects for
winning the presidency. That is especially clear with Obama, who emerged from
nowhere to raise $25 million by offering hope and charisma to Democratic
activists starving for both.

Critics also complain that the public doesn't get a chance to hear the messages
of candidates who can't raise sufficient funds to make a race. But when Tom
Vilsack, the former Iowa governor, dropped out of the Democratic race for lack
of funding, party activists had heard Vilsack's pitch - and decided not to
support him. Either they didn't like his message or they thought he'd be a
weaker candidate than his competitors for the nomination.

People also worry that we are spending ever-larger sums on presidential
campaigns: Overall, the candidates and parties are expected to spend over $1
billion on the 2008 primaries and general election - a sum that, taken alone, is
unimaginable for most people.

But put that $1 billion in perspective: The next president will strongly
influence how the federal government raises some $12 trillion in taxes over the
next four years. And discretionary federal spending - that is, discounting
"automatic pilot" programs like Social security - during those years will total
about $3 trillion.

Spending $1 billion to keep voters informed about candidates who'll help manage
trillions seems like a pittance - without even considering the fact that he or
she will also make countless life-or-death decisions, not least by becoming
commander-in-chief when the nation is at war.

Aren't the candidates setting fund-raising rec- ords? Yes, but that's not
surprising.

Generally speaking, Americans spend about the same proportion of national wealth
on each presidential election. Since the economy grows continually, each
presidential election tends to set a record for campaign spending.

Spending for the 2008 race may grow even faster since both parties have
wide-open races. Open contests usually attract more candidates, who raise more
money. Record spending thus corresponds to record competition for the
nominations of the two parties. This strong competition is a reason to
celebrate, not to lament, the state of American democracy.

Indeed, studies have shown that more spending on elections means better-informed
voters. John Coleman of the University of Wisconsin compared contests for
congressional seats - and found that voters were better informed about the
candidates in the most expensive races. He also discovered that spending helped
the "information poor" voters more than it did the "information rich." That is,
those who knew less about the candidates and the issues gained more information
from high spending than did voters who were already well informed.

Consider, too, that this year's record fund-raising reflects the free choices of
many individuals. It is a serious choice demanding a real sacrifice in money in
support of their hopes for the nation. Americans have a right to give to the
candidate or party of their choice or not to give at all.

Those who complain about record fund-raising often recommend government
financing of campaigns - as in the partial public funding for U.S. presidential
elections. In such systems, the government taxes citizens to provide funding for
candidates and political parties.

This offends liberty twice: Taxes are not voluntary, and everyone is forced to
fund candidates and causes they deplore. Those who prefer not to give at all are
forced to do so. Not surprising, only 7 percent of Americans support the U.S.
system of taxpayer financing of presidential campaigns.

In short, record fund-raising is cause for celebration, not concern. It informs
voters, fosters competition and indicates support for candidates.

Most of all, it shows that Americans are free to support the candidates and
ideas of their choice. That's a freedom well worth preserving.

John Samples is director of the Center for Representative Government at the Cato
Institute.