Money and politics

Ben McGrath’s New Yorker article about Michael Bloomberg (it ran a few weeks back) raises interesting questions about money and politics. 

Bloomberg, of course, is a very wealthy man.  He has accepted $1 a year as his mayoral salary, and he has funded his campaigns himself.  McGrath notes this has avoided the “shaming hat-in-hand” routine most politicians must go through to raise money; Bloomberg’s wealth, the argument goes, has prevented corruption.  This is good.

On the other hand, Bloomberg’s wealth allowed him to “buy” his electoral victory, outspending every candidate the mayoral race had ever seen.  McGrath also mentions another counterargument: Bloomberg’s personal finances have allowed incredible concentration of power and wealth in one person.  Some have suggested he has essentially bought off criticism, silencing doubters with gifts and promises of gifts.

Some of this could be corrected with campaign spending limits.  But the concern about the concentration of power and wealth is interesting.  Is Bloomberg’s personal wealth a pro or con?  Both.

Perhaps, then, the real take-away is that the relationship between money and politics is a conversation we continually need to have, and continually need to watch.