Discussion: Spending limits? Why or why not?

Posted at 1:49 PM on September 1, 2006 by Bob Collins (3 Comments)

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.

---

Comments (3)

From the way I read the strib artilce on it, it sounded like Hatch and Huchingson get the dough. I read it qucik and could very well be wrong.

http://www.startribune.com/587/story/650355.html

Posted by James | September 1, 2006 2:13 PM

---

Craig Westover is our local Pangloss; always looking for the purest ideological equation even when a cold, hard answer stares him in the face. Who gets T-Paw's state money? How much does Hutchinson have in the bank? Questions answered, enough said. This is a good illustration of why Libertarians are the stupidest people on the planet. It's pretty hard to make a grand ideological statement when you have to work backwards from an action built on nothing more than giving your opponents opponent more cash in the bank. Here's hoping that all things work out for the best and that Mr. Westover will one day find his own garden to tend.

cp

Posted by Mr. Sponge | September 2, 2006 12:55 PM

---

As a bit of a campaign finance wonk I have some insight into the "left over" money. Gov Pawlenty gave up about $375,000 of that money about $250,000 was allocated for "Gov candidates" so will be split up between the 2 remaining major party candidates. The remaining funds are "Party" dollars and as I understand it about 60% will go to republican candidates for all state offices (ie State House and Senate and the other state wide state offices) with the rest going to the state Republican Party. In other words the party still gets the money to spend on Pawlenty plus frees up funds that they would have given to /spent on other candidates.

There is a formula for the funds and the money just gets reallocated back into the formula with the republican governor candidate out of the formula.

Posted by Brian Hanf | September 5, 2006 3:46 PM

---

Post a comment

The following HTML tags are allowed in your comments:
+ Bold: <b>Text</b>
+ Italic: <i>Text</i>
+ Link: <a href="http://url" target="_blank">Link</a>
Fields marked with * are required.

Name*:

Email Address*:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments*:

Comment Preview appears above this form upon pressing the "preview" button. Edit your comment and press "preview" again, until you are satisfied with your comment.

Your comment may not appear on the blog until several minutes after it was submitted.

• E-mail this page
• Print this page
• Save to Delicious
• Submit to Digg
• Share this

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories

Become a Sponsor