Yesterday the Houston Chronicle ran a front page story entitled "Race Puts Spotlight on Mega-Doner Trend". Some highlights from the story are that Texas is one of 7 states which have no limits on the amounts that donors can contribute. As far as the contributions...
-------------
IN THE RACE
The candidates and their benefactors:
Gov. Rick Perry
Republican
• Total raised: $13 million
• Mega-donors: Bo Pilgrim, chicken processing, $150,000; Bob and Doylene Perry, home builder, $130,000; Bob Gillikin, diesel engines and generators, $100,000
Carole Keeton Strayhorn
Independent
• Total raised: $7 million
• Mega-donors: John Eddie Williams, personal injury lawyer, $460,000; Walter Umphrey, personal injury lawyer, $450,000; David Alameel, dentist, $375,000; George Ryan, tax accountant, $300,000; Ryan & Co. PAC, $300,000
Kinky Friedman
Independent
• Total raised: $3 million
• Mega-donors: John McCall, beauty supply and cattle rancher, $850,000; Barbara Bowman, retiree, $75,000; Mark Shurley, attorney, $68,200
Chris Bell
Democrat
• Total raised: $2 million
• Mega-donors: Ricardo Weitz, auto dealer, $173,400; Aubrey Swift, deceased oil executive, $110,000; Tom Pirtle, attorney, $110,000; Mikal Watts law firm political committee, $100,000
-----------
Now then, I am completely in favor of keeping things the way they are in this state. For one, we have a much more competitive governor's race than we have had in a while with 4 serious contenders in it. John McCall's $850,000 has given Kinky Friedman 's campaign a chance to voice his opionions before Texas voters. Moreover, politicians can spend more time debating legislation and not chasing after the almighty campaign dollar.
To me the best reason I support unlimited campaign contributions (with the caveat that the donors be fully identified) is that if huge sums of money are flowing into the political process, then that should act as a signal that the political process itself has become so important in people's lives that the populace is willing to spend huge amounts of time and money to gain control over the levers of government. That in turn should be a signal that people might start thinking that government itself should be reigned in and cut back, whether that be by cutting taxes, cutting regulations, cutting out control over people's personal lives, behavior and habits, or anything else. Instead many draw the wrong conclusion and come to believe that the problem is the amount of money some wealthy individuals are able to put into political campaigns. That is considered to be unfair because those individuals are seen as having too much say in the process. By wanting to cut the amount that individuals can contribute, they confuse the symptoms of the disease (lots of money) with the cause (lots of government).
Although money is a very important factor in the political process, it is not the defining one. Some Texans might remember that in the 2002 election, Governor Perry defeated his Democratic rival, Tony Sanchez, though Sanchez spent some $75 million of his own money to try to win the race. The political science literature strongly suggests that if you have a race between an experienced politician and a non-pol, the politician will almost always win the race even if the non-pol has much more money at his or her disposal.
Moreover, one always has to remember that even if some individuals are pouring in vast sums of money towards the issue of who will sit in the governor's mansion, one still has to remember that governors don't govern alone. They have to deal with legislatures too. That alone will go far in diluting the effects of big donations. It's really time that the worry warts who fret over campaign finance stop worrying and start doing some rethinking about what it is that they are afraid of.
Posted by The Mighty Wizard at September 26, 2006 11:17 PM