We Are Certain to Elect a Scumball.

• Author: Ehrenreich, Barbara
• Position: A progrerssive comments on various aspects of the 2000 presidential election campaign

Many people--the number currently hovers at about five--have asked me to comment on the Presidential race. Usually I decline with a modest shrug, but a pundit, no matter how minor, must eventually punditize on whatever topic comes along, no matter how tawdry or trivial that topic may be: the trend toward nose-picking while waiting for the light to change, for example. And, yes, even Campaign 2000.

Already, the primary season has confronted progressives with several challenging questions. First, is campaign finance reform really such a good idea after all, especially if it takes the form of publicly financed campaigns? I used to think, yes, by all means, level the playing field, lower the bar! But that was before the invention of modern campaign techniques like the "push-polls" deployed by George W. in South Carolina. Surely you wouldn't want your own tax money spent financing fake surveys designed to malign one's opponent with questions like, "Would your opinion of Candidate X be altered by the fact that he has been romantically involved with numerous wool-bearing animals, after which he forced them to have abortions on demand?"

No, I think we can all agree that public money should no more be spent on campaigns like these than on arming eighth graders or providing convicted sex offenders with free access to the "XXX" cable channels. But when all the candidates look like groom material for Who Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire? we surely need some form of campaign reform.

George W., who governs a state where 13 percent of the population suffers from malnutrition or hunger, has so far spent more than $50 million to defame his opponents and publicize his alliterative skills.

Steve Forbes, about whose home planet little is known, spent $60 million of his personal pocket money to get his face on TV, often early enough in the evening to frighten small children.

We are talking serious money here, money that could make a difference. Under the current system, it goes almost entirely for television advertising, and amounts to a major transfer of wealth from oil (Bush), beer (McCain), and the financial industry (Gore, Bradley) to the networks and their local affiliates.

But there is no reason that this money could not be used to solve major social problems--like, for example, poverty.

In my combined Campaign Finance Reform/Income Redistribution plan, candidates could spend all they want on advertising as long they let low and moderate income...