Campaign Debt

Much is being made of the issue that Obama is not being sufficiently aggressive in trying to persuade his donors to contribute to retiring Clinton’s campaign debt. I find all of the arguments as to why he should do that unpersuasive, at best.

In the first place, I don’t believe that any candidate should be allowed, by federal election rules, to incur campaign debt. The news media talks endlessly about the pace of donations as a measure of the level of popular support the candidate currently enjoys, and it seems to me the candidate should conduct the campaign within the framework of that support level.

The idea that the winner should devote time and effort to paying off the costs of the loser’s effort is patently absurd. In a business model it would be laughed out of the assembly. If General Motors were to go bankrupt, would anyone suggest that Ford should pay off its debts?

The argument is made that he should make the effort in order to bring Clinton voters to his cause, which to carry on the auto-maker analogy, would be like Ford purchasing the assets of a defunct General Motors. But I don’t buy that argument either, because the Clinton voters are more like the employees of the defunct company; they should flock to the survivor without the need for such inducement.

Can you see the General Motors employees saying to Ford, “Yes I’ll come work for you, but only if you pay off all of General Motors debts first.” I think the laid off workers would accept the paycheck from Ford without caring much how Ford treated their former employer; would be unlikely to decide that they would rather starve than work for Ford.

Are the Clinton voters really so shortsighted that in order to express their anger, or their disappointment, over their idol’s loss that they are willing to contribute to placing a Republican in the White House for another four years? And not just any Republican, but a particularly virulent Republican, one who may be in several ways even worse than the incumbent.

To me the idea of Obama supporters paying off Clinton’s debt is a terrible idea. Money is not an unlimited resource, and those millions of dollars would be far better spent furthering the cause of sending Barack Obama to this nation’s highest office rather than being sunk into a cause already lost. Every dollar that is paid into Clinton’s dead campaign is a dollar unavailable to Obama’s live campaign. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson (although I’m not sure who actually said “Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute.”),

“Millions for the presidency, not one cent for a cause already lost.”