Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign continues to take heat for the criminal allegations against one of her "bundlers," Norman Hsu, who had raised $850,000 for her campaign. Hsu is now in jail and awaits trial. Hillary's campaign is returning the money he raised.
The initial reaction, at least among the press, appeared to be, "Oh my goodness, a wealthy political bundler might have broken the law! Scandal! What will Hillary do?"
Hsu is the beginning, not the end of the story. He's not even the tip of the iceberg. Hsu is the drifting piece of ice near the tip of the iceberg, the small chunk that broke off, one of hundreds of bundlers raising millions of dollars in an endless cycle of fundraising that has come to define the lives of our lawmakers and the nature of our political process. The iceberg of cold campaign cash is immense--and we should look at exactly what it means for American democracy.
We should also note that no matter how unsavory the practice seems, it won't stop unless we change the system.
To prove yourself as a viable candidate, you must raise a lot of of money. To maintain your visibility, introduce yourself to the public, and sustain your viability, you must raise even more. The requirements are skyrocketing--the presidential primary will cost upwards of $100 million for some, Congressional races cost well over $1 million, Senate races in the tens of millions. State senate and house races often reach the hundreds of thousands, and city council and mayoral and judicial races are no exception.
Someone has to find the money. The maximum contribution to the presidential race is $2300. Some of the top contenders have raised roughly $60 million already, mostly from large donors. If each of them raised that amount by talking individually to each max donor for five minutes, it would take five consecutive months of 12 hour days spent entirely talking to max donors without taking a break in order to raise $60 million. Sound like fun? Would doing that make someone a better candidate for president? Is masochism a leadership trait?
The truth is that the only way to raise such huge sums without destroying every shred of your humanity is by delegating it to bundlers. And as the Washington Post observes, that puts a lot of power over the viability and "success" of a campaign in the hands of wealthy people who are virtually unknown even to the candidates:
Norman Hsu... is far from the only controversial figure to play a major fundraising role in campaigns.
Most other candidates have not yet released lists of bundlers, although virtually all have pledged to inspect fundraisers' backgrounds more closely than in past presidential races.
Take money first and ask questions later. Without the money, a candidate can't be considered a "viable" contender. But to get the money, the campaigns must avoid asking too many questions of where it comes from. And the bottom line is that what qualifies these people--to whom the candidates become ingratiated--is their ability to raise cash from anyone, anywhere, and nothing more. Yet they have much greater influence than someone with similar interests or concerns but no ability to raise big money.
If we do not change our system to a public financing model, where candidates can seek the support of large numbers of people who are asked to give only $5, $10, or $20, we will have elected officials whose path to office was paved by bundlers who have money and can locate lots more money. The campaigns may get scrutinized by the media--and they should be, more than we've seen thus far--but they can only change practices on the margins, because a big change to the bundler system would mean a loss of money, a loss of credibility, a loss of the chance to actually win the race.
The candidates are trapped in this system and to opt out is to fail. We need a new system, a game where the people--from all levels of income--can play, and can win.
