Clinton Candidacy a National Disgrace?
Larry Sabato's analysis of Hillary Clinton's candidacy raises an interesting point. Sabato asks in his conclusion, "How is it that the country is on the verge of filling its highest office for the sixth consecutive term from one of two families? That every President from 1989 to 2017 may be a Bush or a Clinton is a national disgrace." Why then has American politics been so dominated by two families for twenty years, possibly going on many more? Has the electorate become too lazy to look beyond the familiar, are campaign donors just more willing to invest early in candidates with built-in name recognition, or is there another reason?
Mr. Sabato suggests that perhaps "the high personal and professional costs of running" may be preventing the best potential Presidents from entering the race. I think it may actually be the high financial cost of running for President that has restricted the field. It is very difficult for most potential candidates to compete with candidates like Clinton and Giuliani who entered the race with nationwide familiarity, when it can cost tens of millions of dollars to build up comparable recognition during the campaign. However, the way to remedy this problem is counterintuitive - eliminate limits on campaign donations.
It makes absolutely no sense for extremely wealthy people (Mike Bloomberg comes to mind) to be able to dump millions, maybe billions, of dollars into their own campaigns while most candidates are limited to acquiring funds $2,300 at a time. This current system provides security for incumbents, famous people able to attract a large quantity of donations, and extraordinarily wealthy people who can pay their own way. In the process campaign finance laws make it very difficult for excellent candidates with more modest means to pick up enough financial support early in the race to communicate their ideas.
Most campaign finance "reformers" want to eliminate the need for money in campaigns, but that is just not possible. Free speech is paradoxically expensive, at least if you want an audience to hear it. Voters can limit the influence of that money, though, by demanding that their elected officials adhere to the values I espouse here. These values will limit the influence of money in politics by limiting the power of government. When government becomes refocused on its basic and generally agreed upon roles, campaign donors and voters can focus on electing the most competent people to office, instead of seeking out the candidates who will vote for their special interest.
Read More. . . .
Mr. Sabato suggests that perhaps "the high personal and professional costs of running" may be preventing the best potential Presidents from entering the race. I think it may actually be the high financial cost of running for President that has restricted the field. It is very difficult for most potential candidates to compete with candidates like Clinton and Giuliani who entered the race with nationwide familiarity, when it can cost tens of millions of dollars to build up comparable recognition during the campaign. However, the way to remedy this problem is counterintuitive - eliminate limits on campaign donations.
It makes absolutely no sense for extremely wealthy people (Mike Bloomberg comes to mind) to be able to dump millions, maybe billions, of dollars into their own campaigns while most candidates are limited to acquiring funds $2,300 at a time. This current system provides security for incumbents, famous people able to attract a large quantity of donations, and extraordinarily wealthy people who can pay their own way. In the process campaign finance laws make it very difficult for excellent candidates with more modest means to pick up enough financial support early in the race to communicate their ideas.
Most campaign finance "reformers" want to eliminate the need for money in campaigns, but that is just not possible. Free speech is paradoxically expensive, at least if you want an audience to hear it. Voters can limit the influence of that money, though, by demanding that their elected officials adhere to the values I espouse here. These values will limit the influence of money in politics by limiting the power of government. When government becomes refocused on its basic and generally agreed upon roles, campaign donors and voters can focus on electing the most competent people to office, instead of seeking out the candidates who will vote for their special interest.
Read More. . . .
