The former Massachusetts Governor raised $7 million outside of federal election laws.

Because he doesn't hold federal office, Mr. Romney became subject to the federal rules only after he set up a presidential exploratory committee earlier this month. Until then, his team took advantage of a little-noticed gap between federal and state law. While most states limit political donations, about a dozen don't. Mr. Romney's political team set up fund-raising committees in three of those: Michigan, Iowa and Alabama. During that time, his political action committees raised $7 million.

By doing this, he has received donations in the six-figure range from individuals. And those donations don’t have to be reported, so you won’t have any idea who is donating (legally bribing) Mr. Romney if he becomes President Romney.

Give Governor Romney and his staff credit for finding and using the loophole. But ask yourself, do you want another president who circumvents the law to help his small cabal of supporters? Wouldn’t you rather have a president than won the White House based on his ideas and not on his negative ads or behind-the-scenes smear campaigns?

You wonder how much of that money will leak false information in 2008. For instance, which Republican candidate will be the target of whispers during the South Carolina primary that he fathered an illegitimate black child? It was enough to halt Senator McCain’s bid in 2000 against then Governor George Bush.

Furthermore, politicians don’t have the same conflict of interest rules that judges and legitimate journalists must follow. They don’t remove themselves from issues where their benefactors are involved. No, politicians just dive into the trough. As Peter G. Peterson says in his book, "Running On Empty", if Congress had to follow the rules they set up for business, most members of Congress would be in prison.

Let’s be clear here. Governor Romney’s big money doesn’t necessarily assure victory for him. The voting public isn’t stupid. But certainly this uneven playing field, which the Supreme Court upholds as a First Amendment Right, will restrict the number of candidates.

I know what you’re going to say. We have nearly 20 candidates running for the White House right now. Well, how many of them will be able to stay in the race for very long – without financial support?

It’s ironic that the same election laws, created after Watergate, are still on the books, but hold no relevance. Because of the skyrocketing costs of campaigns, most candidates will opt out of the federal program for matching campaign funds.

Why don’t you hear about this issue from the majority of the mainstream media? Because more than half of those campaign dollars pays for campaign spots on TV, radio, and in newspapers.

Do you really think news outlets will call for an end to their lifeblood? Read any story about media companies that have news outlets. 2007 is a bad year for them. Revenues will drop on average 25% compared to 2006 – an election year. What the articles don’t say is: "We Can’t Wait For 2008."

Thankfully, the Wall Street Journal is telling you. The only other place to hear the reality is the Internet.

Copyright © John Daly:. Used with permission.

From 01/30/07 article.