The 2016 Election. Already?

Yesterday, the Washington Post stated categorically that Hillary Clinton would run for president in 2016. I don’t know where their crystal ball came from but I inhabit a London suburb and the Post is within the famous Beltway, so it is fair to say that the Post knows better than me. However, Mrs Clinton has made no announcement about running, nor, as the Post concedes, will she do so at any time in the near future. So, why was the Post so adamant in its prediction?

I suppose that after President Obama, Mrs Clinton is the most recognisable American politician, save perhaps for her husband. The appetite of the Clinton couple for politics Washington-style is probably insatiable. This is not a criticism. Politics is in their bones, much like soccer is to a Manchester United fan. It is their raison d’etre.

I have question marks about Mrs Clinton’s supposed run for the White House. She fought a brutal battle for the Democratic nomination in 2008. I have no doubt that in her failure, she made many friends but I suspect she made as many, if not more, enemies. Will grass roots Democrats be willing to support her in 2016 in another “divide the nation” election? These days in America, the red factions are getting redder and the blues are getting bluer, thus a moderate candidate might appeal to the electorate at large. Hillary is anything but a moderate.

Mrs Clinton would attract the African American vote but will she appeal to the Latinos? I believe this depends on whom she has to face in the primaries, as much as the election itself but the Latino vote will be crucial, something which the Clintons will know very well.

The part of the Post’s story that rankled with me related to the Superpacs already in place to support Mrs Clinton. The Supreme Court has ruled that rich corporations and individuals can donate as much of their money as they want to a soft money political campaign. The law in Great Britain is quite different. Individuals and corporations can make large donations, it’s true, but to political parties, not individuals. Our rules on full disclosure ensure that people who try to buy influence have come seriously unstuck, for example Bernie Ecclestone’s one million pound donation to the Labour Party. It was seen as an attempt to buy a deferral of restrictions on tobacco advertising in motor racing. Labour returned the donation following an onslaught from the British press, which is merciless in these kinds of circumstances.

I see the Superpac problem as a tension between the American ideals of freedom and democracy. How can it be democratic for people to donate huge sums of money, with the influence such donations can buy? How is it right to restrict the freedom to spend? The Supreme Court has ruled for freedom. I think the Court is horribly wrong.

In 2016, more money than ever before will be spent on the Presidential primaries and the general election. On the one side, much of this money goes to advertising, printing, merchandise, rent and pizzas, thus funds are ploughed back into local economies. In the battle states, these funds are helpful. On the other side, a small number of individuals will be seen to buy political influence, something that defeats the whole purpose of a free election.

I can offer no solution to this conundrum. At the end of the day, the American voter must decide what to tell his or her political leaders. The biggest danger is that the voters will just turn their backs on the political process.