HRC And Her Dirty Dough

(Though, to be fair, “St.” McCain is doing the same thing, and others probably will also.)

This editorial in USA Today points out a disturbing new practice, and that is politicians who run for public office but decide not to take public money, which means that they don’t have to abide by campaign spending limits.

As a result, the 2008 campaign could be the first billion dollar presidential campaign in this country’s history.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is insane, mainly because we end up having even more of a government “of the money, by the money, and for the money” than ever before.

In response, here is an example of doing the right thing; as noted in the editorial, seven states (Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico and Vermont) and two cities (Albuquerque and Portland, Ore.) are now using or preparing to use public funding for some or all races.

And what happens as a result? As also noted in the editorial…

Gov. Janet Napolitano, who won office under Arizona's public financing law, implemented a prescription drug discount plan on her first day in office in 2003. Had she run with contributions from donors such as drug companies, she said that year, she might never have been able to do that. Lobbyists would have tried to undermine it, threatening to back another candidate in the next election.

"None of that happened," Napolitano said, "because special interests had nothing to hold over me."

Only public money should be used for political campaigns, and if the importance of this practice was communicated to everyone, it would go a long way towards draining the political swamp of Washington, D.C. and putting government back to work for us for a change.

I’m sure Senator Clinton knows this, but she also sees the practicality of needing vast sums of dough to outspend the Repugs, who will conjure up every demon we can imagine and a few we can’t to try and oppose her.

All the same, she should still know better.