In '08, presidential campaigns are the new gasoline

One of the things I really like about a capitalist free market is the opportunity it provides for for any individual to obtain personal wealth. It's imperfect, to be sure, once the inevitable class divisions and financial rifts are in place. But in a perfect world, where everyone was first set on a level playing ground and then the government stepped back and let the Invisible Hand do the work, we would see a direct correlation between work put in and rewards taken out.

That is why I think I ought to stress that the pursuit of a public office should not be considered a part of the free market.

2008 is going to be a record-setting  year in federal politics. Although it's not the first time it's been a possibility, this is potentially the first year for a female or minority candidate to take office. (It's going to be Alan Keyes; just watch.) While Huckabee probably won't dethrone McCain for the GOP party nomination, we're looking at one of the closest Democratic party races in history. And of course, over half a billion dollars were spent by the candidates at the end of 2007, making this the costliest campaign season ever.

The FECA has certainly tried to counter some of this excess spending by candidates, but it's faced resistance in Congress, too. One of the problems with our form of government is that no matter how strongly liberal or conservative our leaders are, no legislation really stays too far away from the center in practice. It certainly gives us relative stability, since the majority party doesn't get its way on everything, but on a number of issues, a compromise is simply less effective than either side's idea. A good example is healthcare- conservatives don't think it's the government's job at all, and liberals want the government doing more. One thing is agreed, though- our present system isn't working.

This carries over into the campaign financing laws- as it stands, there are limits in place on donations to a campaign, but not on an individual's private funding of his or her own campaign. Those provisions got shot down. The argument against the limits is that money is a form of speech, and expenditure of money is protected by the First Amendment. However, not all speech is free- and as you will see, yes, pun intended.

While the statistics are not irrefutable proof, they show a pretty strong trend. The candidates finishing in the top three in primaries have been Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards (prior to his withdrawal) for the Democrats, and John McCain, Mitt Romney (prior to his withrdawal), Mike Huckabee, and to a lesser extent, Ron Paul with the Republicans. Ron Paul had the largest ever single-day fundraiser last year, and besides he and Huckabee, all of the above candidates have raised over $40 million for their campaigns. Obama and Clinton have each raised over $100 million- positively staggering.

Name recognition is a key factor in campaign success. Money buys name recognition. Since donations are curbed, ultimately individual wealth is left as the primary means through which name recognition, and thus campaign success, is achieved. It takes money to make money, or take office, in this case. Everyone remembers Ross Perot, right? Great guy. He was one of few third party candidates to be taken seriously in the general election (Roosevelt comes to mind, but he was an incumbent when he decided to start a third party). As of 2007 he is the 57th-richest man in America. He virtually bought his way into the American consciousness. That's not to say he wasn't a competent candidate, and wouldn't have made a great leader. But $65.4 million of private funds is certainly a lot more than Socialist Joe Schmo has to put into his presidential bid. And it can still hardly compete with two entire parties pumping money into their candidates.

When you're being effectively forced to spend more on a campaign to keep your name above the water, that isn't free speech. Isn't the fact that offices aren't for sale one of the principles that Americans sleep easy knowing? Take the campaigns for those offices out of the free market to follow suit. It should be regarded as a separate issue. If financially, all of the candidates are on a relatively equal playing ground, then the process becomes much more about the issues and the leadership, which are really what we all should be looking for on the ballot this November.

The limitations of the FECA are really formalities. I'm a libertarian- promise- but I think the government should have more say in how its own campaigns are funded.