Just because President Richard Nixon extorted money from ITT in the form of funding for the 1972 Republican National Convention doesn't mean we need public financing for conventions today. The nomination process and campaign-money regime have evolved (Dita Beard references are always welcome, but not always relevant).
I don't favor full public financing of presidential campaigns. It's a legitimate position, but the rules imposed by the courts and the preferences of the major parties ensure it won't happen. These days, a rich individual can sink millions into a presidential campaign, and that's the way it's going to be.
By itself, public financing of the conventions doesn't protect against corruption. It's merely an incentive from the government for the parties to advertise themselves in a particular way, through multiday informercials, which is what the conventions are these days.
Given the choice, I would have shifted the convention money to partial public financing of House elections. Or I could imagine an argument for simply handing the parties a check, and letting them spend the money as they see fit.
What I can't imagine is making a case based on 42-year-old Nixonian shenanigans.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg View's editorial board or Bloomberg LP, its owners and investors.
(Jonathan Bernstein covers U.S. politics for Bloomberg View. He is co-editor of "The Making of the Presidential Candidates 2012." Follow him onTwitter at @JBPlainblog.)
To contact the author on this story:
Jonathan Bernstein at email@example.com
To contact the editor on this story:
Max Berley at firstname.lastname@example.org