Washington Post Concerned by Excessive Transparency and Pervasive Civility in Virginia Campaigns

By Chris | Friday, August 21st, 2009 | Politics

The sheer pointlessness of yesterday’s Washington Post article about Virginia’s campaign finance laws is astounding. When I first read the article, I actually thought it was from The Onion or something. Sadly, this fluffernutter appears to have been a serious attempt at journalism.

First of all, the subtitle of the article is “Campaign Contributions Worry Some Virginians.” However, if you actually read the article, they don’t talk to a single regular Virginian. In fact, the only Virginian who seems the least bit concerned is Del. Albert Pollard, who calls Virginia the “Cayman Islands” of campaign finance. So, I guess being a nice vacation spot with no taxes is a bad thing then.

Of course, they do also interview this guy named Nick Nyhart, who says that Virginia’s system is “an open invitation to corruption.” Hmm, I guess that’s why Virginia is always at the top of those lists of states with the most corruption in state government. Oh wait, we’re not? How strange. I dunno, maybe Nick Nyhart, the former community organizer who has spent much of his time in the Northeast, just got confused and was thinking about somewhere else.

Further, the only problem that the Post seems to find with Virginia’s campaign finance system is that it is quite unlike many other states. The Post says:

Politicians in Virginia operate under highly unusual finance rules that require exceptional transparency of candidates and contributors but put virtually no limits on who can give and how much.

Oh, the horror! Virginia does things differently than other states and the feds! We must stop this horrible affront to basic human decency!

Of course in the very next sentence the Post practically concedes the whole point of the article with this:

The system has been little challenged in recent years, in part because proponents think it reduces the time candidates spend raising money and encourages candid giving, as donors write checks directly to candidates instead of anonymously backing independent political action groups.

Yep. Pretty hard to believe there’s not rioting in the streets over all this rampant transparency and political free speech going on in Virginia.

Finally, the article proceeds to inform us that both candidates would have a lot less money if Virginia imposed the federal contribution limit on individual giving. (REALLY?!) Of course, the Post doesn’t say why imposing such a limit would be a good thing, but hey, that’s not really important here.

You know, now that I think about, it’s funny that I don’t remember hearing the Post weigh in on Virginia’s campaign finance laws when it was the Democrats with the lead in the polls these past few years. I guess the Post’s ultimate gripe is that any system which results in a Republican candidate having a 10-15% edge in the polls in August is inherently flawed and therefore must be reformed to level the playing field.

It sure is a good thing we misguided Virginians have the Washington Post to look out for us now isn’t it?

Tags: