A Case of the Vapors
Fred Thompson's "testing the waters" status in the presidential race may have gotten him in some hot water. As our Ryan Sager reported yesterday, a liberal blogger, Lane Hudson, has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging that the former Tennessee senator has gone beyond what he's allowed to do with his current committee under the law. While Mr. Hudson's motives may be partisan, his reasoning appears to be sound, and Mr. Thompson's campaign will have to give a serious answer to the charges 15 days after the FEC formally serves it with the complaint. That said, while Mr. Thompson must certainly follow the law as it is written, the law he's fallen afoul of is rather silly. As an author of some of this silliness himself, having helped shepherd the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance-regulation law through the Senate, he could go a long way toward restoring his good name by challenging these rules head-on.
What's gotten Mr. Thompson in trouble is that in order to be considered in the "testing the waters" phase of one's campaign, one cannot make "written or oral statements" that refer to one's self as "a candidate for a particular office." However, in order to keep up interest from voters, Mr. Thompson has had to play a little peek-a-boo with statements such as: "You're either running or not running. I think the steps we're taking are pretty obvious." But why should our election laws encourage candidates to engage in such charades? The "testing the waters" status allows candidates to delay disclosing who their donors are and how much they've raised, but this only muddies the waters as voters and donors consider a potential candidate. The only other thing the status accomplishes is to create uncertainty for potential campaigns as to what they can and cannot do as far as raising and spending money and communicating with voters. Having gotten it wrong could end up costing Mr. Thompson more than $1 million in fines.
Better, it would seem, that this testing-the-waters status be eliminated in its entirety. After all, if it's going to exist, ought it not apply to self-financed potential candidates like Mayor Bloomberg, who can spend an unlimited amount of his personal wealth hiring pollsters and jetting around the country? And ought it not apply to Governor Spitzer, who is a sure candidate for 2012 if another Democrat doesn't capture the White House in 2008? Potential candidates could still dip their toes in the water; they'd just be governed under the same system as anybody else running for president. They'd have to meet the normal disclosure requirements, but they'd be free to speak and spend as they saw fit. All this would be far from a full fix of our campaign finance system. For that, we would need to see the repeal of McCain-Feingold and the lifting of all limits on campaign donations. But the system would be simpler, and we'd have one less regulation. Perhaps Mr. Thompson, the former regulator, now sees the wisdom in moving in this direction.
