People are fond of saying that “money talks” in politics no less
than in life. In presidential elections, money has something to
say, but you have to listen closely. Take the case of Sen. John
Edwards (D-NC), who wants to be the Democratic presidential
candidate.
Recently we learned Edwards had raised over $7 million for his
campaign, second only to front-runner Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.).
This success gave Edwards credibility with journalists and party
leaders. On the bad side, he had to give back some of the money
when it turned out the donations violated federal law. Now the
Department of Justice is looking into the case.
Having to return the donations surely says little about Edwards’
personal integrity. Some employees of a law firm in Little Rock,
Arkansas, apparently gave the Edwards campaign the maximum legal
donation of $2,000 believing their employer, a friend and supporter
of the senator, would reimburse them. That’s illegal under federal
law, and once the violation became known, the Edwards campaign
promptly returned the money. The rest of us can take some comfort
in knowing that Edwards did the right thing, at least once the
Washington Post found out his fundraisers had done the
wrong thing.
Edwards’ mini-scandal grew out of the intense competition for
the Democratic presidential nomination. He faces an uphill battle
to become the Democratic candidate in 2004. The media have already
crowned Sen. John Kerry as the front-runner. Faced with Kerry and
other tough rivals, Edwards desperately needed to prove his
candidacy was serious.
Fundraising aside, Edwards’ appeal to the Democratic faithful
lies elsewhere. He is putting himself forward as a political
moderate from the South. He offers the prospect of a return to the
1990s when another Southern moderate, Bill Clinton, won two terms
in the White House. Edwards hopes Democrats will recall the
electoral disasters brought on the party by a Northeasterner
(Michael Dukakis) in 1988 and a Midwesterner (Walter Mondale) in
1984.
Edwards has a point. No one should doubt the power of
regionalism in American politics. All presidents since 1972 have
been from the South or the West. Edwards has one essential trait
for winning the presidency.
But John Edwards is not Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton (not to
mention Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush). He’s not a former
governor. All presidents since 1972 (save for George H.W. Bush)
have held the highest office in a state far from Washington, D.C.
That’s not surprising. Americans regularly tell pollsters they
don’t trust the federal government. Their faith in D.C. has
improved ever so slightly of late but probably not enough to elect
a Washington insider (or someone from Massachusetts).
Edwards is a senator (and hence, an insider) but only recently
arrived (elected in 1998). He might hope to run a populist campaign
and hope his Southern charm carries him the rest of the way.
Yet Edwards became rich as a trial lawyer and gets most of his
campaign funds from his fellow plaintiffs of the bar. He has gotten
about 60 percent of his funding for the presidential campaign from
other lawyers. There’s nothing illegal or immoral about that.
Lawyers also have a right to participate in politics.
Having trial lawyers for friends and supporters, however,
contravenes the image Edwards hopes to cultivate as an outsider who
will stand up to the special interests in D.C. Fairly or not, trial
lawyers seem to have found their own presidential candidate in John
Edwards.
Edwards will say trial lawyers fight for the little guy against
big corporations who have done them wrong. His opponents will
surely point out that two thirds of Edwards’ money comes from
donors giving the legal maximum of $2,000. That may make his
populist rhetoric sound hollow.
We should not be concerned that John Edwards’ campaign broke
some campaign finance rules. We should wonder why he has not
attracted broad support from Democratic donors. Americans hope to
elect a president who seeks, to the best of his ability, the good
of the nation as a whole. For now, John Edwards seems more of a
lobbyist than a leader.
