Money and Politics

Those of us who supported Barack Obama’s campaign for the presidency, and rejoiced in his victory, have to admit one point. If he’d been outspent by a wide margin because his opponent had vast financial resources unavailable to our candidate, we’d be hollering, and justly so.

One reason for Sen. Obama’s record-breaking fundraising was the Internet’s pervasiveness. Gov. Dean showed the way. Sen. Obama exploited it to a fair-thee-well, in part because he was smart, and in part because he was such an attractive candidate. That said, it isn’t right in a democracy for elections to be decided when there are huge disparities of resources. The president-elect spent more than any other candidate in history; he did it privately; and he operated within the prevailing law. But in one respect his financial superiority raises an important question of public policy. Do we want a presidential campaign where the richest candidate can buy his way to the presidency?

Sen. Obama can assure that no one ever does. He is in the perfect position now to reach out to his former adversary, Sen. John McCain, who has preached about campaign finance reform, and both could propose a bipartisan campaign finance law that evens the financial playing field for future elections.

As the victor, as a politician who advocated ethics in government, as a chief executive who claims the high road, the next president can afford to be virtuous on this issue. It isn’t a day-one emergency, like dealing with the war and economy, but it ought to be part of his proud legacy to have democratized the American democracy. There are other election reforms that should be adopted — the voting process, the primary season, the Electoral College are examples — but dealing with the role of money in politics is essential.

Visit www.RonaldGoldfarb.com.