There's too much money in politics, right?  Super PACs are poisoning the election process, yes?  Not so fast.  Before we hyperventilate, let's step back and look at the role of money in the ongoing Republican primaries.  What we find is that money and television time for candidates are good things.  It's the unwanted influence of the candidates' sponsors we need to worry about.

In a recent critique of political reformers, conservative columnist and pundit George Will pointed out that more money will be spent on "Easter candy" - $ 2 billion - than will be spent on political campaigns.  Given the stakes and importance of controlling the United States government, Will is "astonished" that so little is spent on politics. 

In fact George Will is exaggerating a little.   According to the LA Times, advertising analysts estimate that $2.4 billion will be spent on political campaigns this year while the total candy market - not just the Easter candy -  is estimated at $2 billion.  Will is talking about the candy, rather than the advertising behind the candy, so he is guilty of comparing apples to oranges.  We get a better relative sense of how much is spent on political advertising by looking at the ad budgets of some major corporations.  Proctor and Gamble, for example, spends $5.2 billion to advertise soap, cleaning products, batteries, toothpaste and tampons.  Verizon and AT&T each spend over $3 billion annually advertising telecommunications.    These figures suggest that spending on political advertising is indeed relatively small.

Much of the rhetoric from the reform community focuses on the amount of money Super PACs are pouring into campaigns, implying that the money itself is the problem.  But slogans like "Get the Money Out" can suggest the wrong problem and the wrong solutions.  Yes, we desperately need to get the influence of campaign money out of the legislative process.  However, a healthy American political system requires more money, not less.

All of the major Republican candidates for President in 2012 have Supers PACs supporting them– independent political action committees to which donors can give unlimited amounts of money.  The only requirement is that there cannot be any collusion between these Super PACs and the candidates' campaigns.  While we can surely find plenty of problems with the current system, the fact remains that the money itself has contributed to an especially robust debate in the ongoing Republican primaries. 

The negative ads, sometimes annoying but often entertaining, have illuminated each of the candidates’ significantweaknesses. Mitt Romney's flip-flops (here and here)have been showcased like an Olympic gymnastics event.  Because of the money, Newt Gingrich's character flaws including his corrupt relationship with mortgage giant Freddie Mac, cannot not be covered up by his smooth debating style.  Even Ron Paul's unusual views on foreign policy came under further scrutiny as a result of a Super PAC ad. 

The numerous debates have, in turn, given the candidates a chance to respond to charges in these ads.  While this particular set of candidates may not be especially inspiring, the money in the 2012 Republican primaries has educated voters, tested candidates and made for a competitive election process.  Without the Super PACs, Mitt Romney, with his huge personal wealth and deeply laid campaign infrastructure, would have glided unchallenged and unscrutinized straight to the nomination. Money injected into the race through Super PACs has in some ways improved democracy.

So the extra money is good, but reformers are right to worry about what donors might expect in return for their investments, or, um, "donations."  Newt Gingrich's mega-donors, Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam, have supported Gingrich with two installments of $5 million each.  The Adelsons are said to be motivated by Gingrich's staunch support of Israel, but as the majority owners in Las Vegas Sands casinos, they have been battling the federal government over tax issues.  The enormous size of the Adelsons’ support makes Gingrich utterly dependent on them.  If he’s elected president, it's hard to conceive that Gingrich could ever look at casino tax policy, or even the US relationship with Israel, with the objectivity the office of president requires.  Gingrich is already known for his history, as a member of Congress, of fighting for the interests of his big campaign donors.

Reformers and their opponents should resist the false and unhelpful choice of either accepting the corrupt system, as exemplified by the Gingrich-Adelson connection, or simply "getting the money out."  Rather, we need to replace the dirty money with clean and abundant sources of campaign finance with no strings attached.