Bloomberg's Billions Blast Bedrock Ballot Beliefs
David Weigel | May 15, 2007, 11:40am
Crackerjack journalist
Ralph Z. Hallow reveals that Mike Bloomberg might spend $1 billion for an independent presidential bid, and
Garance Franke-Ruta (make sure you're 21 before reading her punditry) sees the bright side.
A Bloomberg entry would raise the specter of an unprecedented all New Yorker race, if Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani win their primaries, as well as the effective obliteration of campaign finance laws as we know them.
Like
I wrote last month, our campaign finance laws are
already imploding because the two parties' frontrunners are opting out of the public financing system. A Bloomberg run doesn't really change that. But the "billionaire buys White House" scenario is the fantasy behind a lot of CFR, and a Bloomberg campaign would destroy that fantasy. It would be Croeses II: a super-confident tycoon will dump his fortune into the campaign and... come in a poor third to the candidates he just outspent by two to one. The "keep money out of politics!" crowd will have to explain that
and justify the laws preventing the free flow of political money, and they won't be able to.
Either that or the Democrats and Republicans say "never again!" and pass a law forbidding candidates to fund their own campaigns.
Richard | May 15, 2007, 12:16pm | #
For what it's worth, John Podhoretz over at The Corner deemed this "The Silly Story of the Day.":
"Look, there's a reason Michael Bloomberg is the richest man in New York. It's because he's not the type to blow a billion dollars on a fantasy. When he spent $76 million to win the mayoralty and another comparable amount to get reelected, he did so with a very specific and workable game plan for the money. Here he would just be lighting a match to the cash.
When Ross Perot ran in 1992, he had two very specific aims in mind: He wanted to talk about the budget deficit, and he wanted to screw George Bush the Elder, who he had convinced himself had done something to disrupt his daughter's wedding. He had nothing of moment to say about the budget deficit except that it was bad, and he quit the race when he thought Clinton had it in the bag, only to reenter it when Clinton appeared to stumble a bit in September.
Bloomberg has no such passion driving him. He has very little passion at all, which is why he has been a workmanlike mayor of New York City who has succeeded because he kept in place the policies of his predecessor.
Why can't Bloomberg win? First, because independents can't win. Second, because he's a Jew.Third, because he's too short. Fourth, becasue he's way, way, way too rich. Fifth, because, I mean, come on. Sixth, because, I mean, really."
Jonah Goldberg (and I) disagree with the "Jew" part, but otherwise, that sounds right.
