A level playing field?

Some day, perhaps, news organizations will cover, in depth, the proposed policies of the two presidential candidates. But until then, we'll get every tiny slip of the tongue blown up as a major gaff, the "insider" gossip within the campaigns, and scrutiny of campaign moves that will have no bearing on actually running this country.

A good example last week was the media flap over Obama's decision not to accept public campaign financing funds, something he said back before Iowa that he was likely to do.

The Republicans cried "foul" and he got hammered in the press, yet most taxpayers seemed pleased that a candidate wasn't going to spend their hard-earned tax dollars on his campaign. So what was the problem?

Call it a lesson in political economics.

So far, in his meteoric rise from a relative unknown before Iowa to the head of his party's ticket today, Obama has raised more than three times as much money as McCain has raised, and much of it in small, individual contributions of $100 or less. For all his strengths, McCain is not a good fundraiser (and increasingly demonstrating he's not a great national campaigner, either).

McCain can use the public money, Obama doesn't need it. And in today's political world, how much you spend on your campaign goes a long way toward determining how many votes you get.

If a politician accepts public financing of his presidential campaign, federal law caps how much money he can spend directly on his campaign. For Obama, that cap is significantly less than what he's raised so far, or likely to raise in the next five months. The Republicans want him to accept the money in order the "level the playing field."

At the same time, there are ways to get around the cap, primarily by having "independent" PACs (Political Action Committees) spend money "supporting" a candidate. Over the years, the GOP has been much, much better at organizing PACs for that purpose. The Democrats have been a little clumsy at doing so. Putting a cap on direct campaign funding, therefore, gives the Republicans an advantage.

In the end, the GOP advantage in PAC money may make up for Obama's advantage in being able to raise money directly for his campaign. So despite the flap, the playing field may actually BE even.

Hopefully, that means the candidates, and the media, can start focusing on the real issues and the significant differences in the proposed policies of the two candidates.

-- Kelly Everitt