Discussion: Spending limits? Why or why not?
Tim Pawlenty is not the first candidate for high office to blow off public financing so that he's not bound by spending limits. Both George Bush and John Kerry left the dough on the table in 2004. And it's hardly a secret that getting elected to public office is requiring more and more money.
Aside from the question I have, wondering where the money goes that people checkmarked on their state income tax returns, dedicating a portion of their return to a particular party (is there suddenly more money now available for, say, auditor candidates?), can we now safely say that the concept of public funding for campaigns is dead?
Craig Westover, the Afton blogger and PiPress columnist, says Pawlenty made the right decision, but missed a chance to make a principled statement.
Make no mistake, I think Pawlenty made the right decision, but once again he fails to seize an opportunity to make a principled point. Public subsidies and campaign finance laws are simply bad ideas. The rationale that campaign finance laws promote more democratic participation in the election process is admirable in theory, but as the rise of PACs supports, it is impractical in application.
In a world where candidates issue press releases extolling their superior fundraising ability, is it hypocritical to condemn Pawlenty as the DFL is doing today? Or are they spot on?
Discuss.
Create a More Connected Minnesota
MPR News is your trusted resource for the news you need. With your support, MPR News brings accessible, courageous journalism and authentic conversation to everyone - free of paywalls and barriers. Your gift makes a difference.