Private campaign financing is bad, mmm-kay?

I went hunting today for a new Robyn Blumner editorial to club to death.  There's nothing new from Blumner in the St. Petersburg Times--at least not under her byline--but a target-rich bylineless editorial did appear.  The readers were all over it, so for the most part I'll let letter-writers point out the problems in the editorial.

Let the game begin with the lead paragraph:

In California, former eBay CEO Meg Whitman spent more than $70 million of her own money to win last week's Republican primary for governor. In Florida, former health care executive Rick Scott has spent more than $12 million to become the front-runner for the Republican nomination for governor. Palm Beach billionaire Jeff Greene is virtually tied for the lead in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate. Yet the U.S. Supreme Court continues to gut efforts to level the playing field and allows those with the fattest wallets to have the loudest voices and drown out everyone else. 

 Any consideration for the fact that the election is shaping up with a strong anti-incumbent and anti-Washington spirit?  Rich candidates are nothing new.  Steve Forbes.  Ross Perot.  Michael Huffington.  The list of moneyed losers is quite long.

And now a word from a reader:

So where were your editorials when big money from Goldman Sachs and the hedge funds were financing Obama's campaign?

--imapopulistnow

The second paragraph of the editorial uses the example of  a recent case from Arizona where the Court suspended enforcement of a state law that provided extra public financing for candidates who are outspent by an opponent.  Gov. Brewer is facing a primary challenge from rich guy Owen "Buz" Mills.  Brewer leads Mills handily in the polls.  Boo-hoo.

And now another word from a reader (I take this as brilliant sarcasm):

We should immediately pass a law that limits rich people from spending their money. They will be impossible to control.

--LT

The third paragraph of the editorial ... well, I was going to summarize it but I will quote it instead since I think it contains a whopper:

The implications are significant for Florida, whose system is similar but not identical to Arizona's. In return for voluntarily accepting spending limits, statewide candidates get state matching money for smaller contributions. They also get a matching dollar for every dollar their opponent spends over the limit. That is the system that enabled the late Democratic Gov. Lawton Chiles to keep his $100 contribution limit in 1994 and still match the spending by unsuccessful Republican challenger Jeb Bush. It is the system that also enabled then-Republican Charlie Crist to get more than $7.4 million in public matching money for smaller contributions for his successful campaign for governor in 2006.
(yellow highlights added)

Whopper:  The $7.4 million figure for Crist is almost certainly inaccurate.  My research indicates that Crist got $3.3 million out of a total of about $7.4 million received by the four major gubernatorial candidates in 2006.  The smallest amount received among those four was $945,000 for a loser in the Democratic primary, Rod Smith.  And the Times' Adam C. Smith reported that Crist raised a record $50 million that year. Florida's public financing system gave him an even greater advantage.  Way to even the playing field, Florida!

The fourth paragraph expands on Florida's system, noting that the Republicans in the state legislature have proposed getting rid of the public financing system.  The editorial also suggests those same Republicans may want to reconsider now that Rick Scott has overtaken the GOP favorite Bill McCollum in the polls.  Boo-hoo again.

Reader comment:

Is it better to foster a class of government teat-suckers who have no connection to the world of real work, and entitle those idiots to lifetimes of seriatim political leadership positions over the rest of us?

--JerryEmmonsIsDead

The fifth paragraph continues the diatribe against the Supreme Court, claiming the Court "is on a mission to discourage free speech rather than allow it to flourish from many voices."  The paragraph mourns the death of the "Millionaires' Amendment" and the outcome of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case.

Using "allow (speech) to flourish" seems like an odd turn of phrase when we're actually talking about government regulation supposedly increasing free speech.  We have as an unstated assumption that the failure to regulate free speech will result in less free speech.

To repeat the initial point, this election favors outsiders.  People with money are outsiders.  People with very little money are outsiders.  It boils down to the message, not the money.  Chill, Times editors.