Campaign Reform? Try Campaign Inflation

by Jonah Goldberg - March 28th, 2007 - Townhall.com

Billionaire Michael Bloomberg reportedly tells friends that his idea of good financial planning is to have his check to the undertaker bounce. "So," asks the Washington Post, "how does a billionaire spend all his money before he dies?" Well, "he just might drop a cool half-billion on a long-shot bid to become the nation's first modern president from outside the two major political parties."

Now, if you're the sort of person who thinks Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, is the man to save America, this column's probably not for you. So, the seven or eight of you who feel this way are excused from reading further. For the rest of us, the pressing question is, "What hath we wrought?"

This article is just brimming with interesting issues. Of course they are all related.

First off is the idea that Bloomberg might drop a half billion into running in 2008. What (you have to wonder) will be the consequence for the political parties? Perot was the primary reason that Bill Clinton was President. It is easy to forget that the 90s were dominated by one person who would never have been President if Perot had not hated George H.W. Bush so much that he ran as an independent just to hurt Bush. Will Bloomberg's candidacy help the Republicans or the Democrats?

Next is the issue of free speech. McCain-Feingold has not reduced the money in political races. It has simply changed how it is spent. It has damaged free speech in the process. It has dramatically increased the power of the courts over political campaigns too. This is because now the courts get to handle lawsuits about whether the Federal Elections Commission is applying the rules fairly, whatever fairly means. So far it looks like it is harming our nation more than helping. How will these dynamics play out in coming years?

A couple of indirect issues are in play here as well. Like money, incumbency is an idea that Republicans love to hate. Like money, the consequences for the term limits movement has consistently been results worse than the problem they tried to fix. Will the Republican Party abandon its fascination with term limits? Maybe this issue is too obscure to tie directly to this article, but it is related.

Another related issue that this article forces you to think about is the war in Iraq. What exactly will be the consequences for the nation's thoughts on Islamofascism of Bloomberg running? Will this help or hurt getting the American people to think about this long term war and the consequences if the Islamofascists get nuclear bombs? In the last election the major factor which surfaced was that a huge part of our population simply did not want to deal with this issue. Islamofascism is not a force we have to care about (was the implication of the vote). Where does Bloomberg stand on this war issue? Does anyone really know?

I guess one reason I still read Jonah is that he often comes up with articles that really cause you to think. This is a good one.