The Power of Incumbency

Getting elected to high office in the United States is no small task these days. Even for a lowly Congressman you can spend millions of dollars campaigning and for a Senate or Presidential run you are talking about 10’s of millions or now 100’s of millions of dollars. We are constantly hearing about how we spend way too much getting our politicians elected, and how we need to get the money out of politics. Let me give you a revelation. Politics is money. And money is politics. The two go together and are never going to be separated.
Today, one of a politician’s most important duties is fundraising. Without money to grease the skids and get the word out, that politician will not get elected. Which raises the issue of “Incumbency.” Incumbents want to limit the ability of their competition; hence, campaign finance reform. The most recent form is the McCain Feingold bill. The basic tenants of the bill limit how much an individual or corporation can give to a politician, and their Political Action Committee (PAC). This bill created a new creature called a 501C3.
The whole argument behind all of these laws is that they force the politician to go out and raise money from as many people as possible, as opposed to having one or two financial backers. In reality what it does is make it very hard to challenge the incumbent. Once a politician gets into office he or she can continue to raise money for the next election and they now have the power of the bully pulpit to talk about their programs and how they are helping their community. Special interest groups will petition the elected politician to vote certain ways on bills by making campaign contributions and asking their members to do likewise if said politician votes their way. I have nothing against special interest groups and I am a member of more than one and I believe in what they stand for (I will write about special interest groups later).
What I am against is limiting the amount of money an individual can contribute to any given politician. I say let the money flow and may the best politician win. Take off the limits and see who is best at getting their message out. If it is the incumbent, then they will raise the most money and get re-elected. But if it is a new-comer with fresh ideas who beats the incumbent fair and square or even just out spends them due to raw fund raising ability (As we saw with Obama) then so be it. I say get rid of all the laws that force politicians to form multiple PAC’s so that they can raise enough money to run for office. If a person has great ideas and a great message but no funding they are very unlikely to be elected. If that same person also has a political backer who is willing to finance them there is no reason why they should not be able to do that. The people who cry foul are the incumbents. The incumbents, who use their office to craft the laws to exclude such circumstances.
Now we have good laws on the books that allow the public to see who is donating to a particular politician and I think that practice should continue, but at the same time if I want to give 1 million dollars to my favorite politician as long as I disclose it, there should be no uproar. Except of course from the incumbents who will get their panties in a bunch and cry foul and that there is too much money in politics. No, the problem is that there is not enough money in politics. When the free market is allowed to flow the ideas and freedom of our great country will improve. When you limit ideas and entry into a particular market (i.e. Politics) you tear the country down and reduce our freedoms. God Bless America!