Campaign Finance: When a Woman is the Big Spender

(Cross-posted on the Huffington Post)

By Lisa Nuss

I’m detecting an undercurrent in the media of fear.  It’s a fear of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s formidable fundraising capabilities.  Last week, the senator declined to opt into public financing, which leaves her campaign free to spend the kind of money it takes to win.

Money is power and people get nervous when a woman wields power.  The New York Times ran an article after the general election criticizing Sen. Clinton for spending too much money to win her Senate race.  This is part of the undercurrent -- we’re seeing a new discourse, now that we have a woman with the prowess to raise money with the big boys.  In typical media coverage, a politician’s campaign finance chest is a measure of that person’s strength.  The media gives a conscientious nod to the need for campaign finance reform, while revering candidates who can raise the most money.  When I worked for U.S. Senator Bob Packwood in 1986 (R-OR) he raised $6 million which was unheard of in the Northwest states back then.  Some did note it was an excessive sum, but the undercurrent was an acknowledgement of his power: “man, nobody can touch this guy!”  Money was a measure of power until a woman started leading the pack.

When Elizabeth Dole ran in 2000 she was number two in the polls behind Bush early on in the primary but she couldn’t raise any money, so she faded away.  Sen. Clinton is number one in the polls and a fundraising powerhouse; she won’t be fading away.  That makes people nervous.  When the young white male bloggers wring their hands at Sen. Clinton's rejection of public financing, they expose either their naivete or some kind of Freudian resentment of their mothers, or both.

I support the concept of campaign finance reform.  I even started and then abandoned a fledgling career as a campaign finance attorney after watching the peak of the 527 manipulations to avoid new limits in the 2004 elections.  So long as we have Buckley v Valeo (holding that political contributions are protected free speech) and crafty lawyers finding loopholes, campaign finance laws can't be meaningful.  Money finds a way.

1.26.07

See 1/30 WSJ article "How Mitt Romney Avoided Campaign Finance Rules" for more information on maneuverings around campaign finance laws

Comments

[Lexia]

Thanks very much for these posts.

I don't suppose you could report on the Libby trial, too? I can't find any objective reporting, period. Leftist pages reporting on the trial all have their little or large dose of Senator Clinton hatred held out right up front - "Here, take this, then you can get on to the facts you as a concerned citizen are trying to find out about what this illegal government has done".

It is sickeningly that these writers consider themselves progressive.