New York Times writes today that NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg "has already spent nearly $50 million of his own money on his re-election campaign, according to campaign records released yesterday." Of course, the election is still a month away.
They note that Bloomberg is not unique: New Jersey Senator Jon Corzine spent $60 million of his own money campaigning in 2000.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on it: Is this good democracy?
My own, still-evolving, view is that the modern democracy is, whoever spends the most, wins.
Exceptions abound: to stick only with the NYC mayor's race, one of the Democratic primary contenders came in far behind the other three he far outspent (ultimately I think he ended up spending about $150 for each vote he actually received). You no doubt have your own favorite counter-example (which I'd like to hear).
But by and large, I think voters know little of the issues, little of the candidates' history or future policy plans, and can by and large have their affections bought. Whoever looks like a winner, will be the winner. And buckets of money, by and large, make you look like a winner.
Is that all part of democracy? Is it the voters' fault? The candidates' fault? Our own fault -- which is to say, the fault of the system?
And, if you could design campaign finance rules from scratch, how would you do it?
I'd like this to be an open thread on campaign finance, particularly relating to billionaire candidates. What do you think should be done?