When Sarah Palin joined Mike Huckabee as the latest once-and-probable-future-candidate to get a lucrative gig on Fox News, it finally occurred to me what is likely going on. Yes, Fox News loves to hire celebrity shills for its propaganda, but there are plenty of other choices out there, and neither Huckabee nor Palin shied away from the cameras before they were hired. Why then create these jobs for Huckabee and Palin in particular? A possible (or perhaps probable) answer: to blow past campaign finance limitations.
Consider the current Citizens United case about to be decided by the Supreme Court. The question in the case is the existence and scope of the "right" of corporations as "legal persons" to use their substantial financial resources for or against a particular political candidate. At the heart of the argument is whether corporations have a right to free speech, just as individuals do, when it comes to electoral politics.
Even if the case succeeds, though, there will likely still be caps on direct corporate campaign donations, just as there are on individual ones. On the other hand, there are no limitations on how much of his or her personal fortune a candidate may spend on, say, running for President of the United States, provided he or she does not request federal matching funds. As we've seen with national and local candidates from Ross Perot to Michael Bloomberg, while a fortune doesn't assure election, it certainly helps a great deal.
This brings me to Palin and Huckabee, both of whom have recently been hired as commentators by Fox News. While neither's salary has been reported, one can safely assume that they are not doing this for their health alone. Instead, whatever they are making at Fox can easily be tucked away into their pockets for a "rainy day" or the 2012 campaign, whichever comes first. As neither has ruled out a 2012 run, I have little doubt that Rupert Murdoch is well aware of where their salary checks may end up (probably buying campaign ads on his networks and in his newspapers, after all), and I would not be surprised to find that he and they are willing partners in this end6-run around campaign finance rules.
Even if this is true, though, it's not clear if there's anything one can do to stop it. Whether it's Fox, an alcohol industry convention, or some other organization, there are plenty of deep pockets out there ready to backdoor-bankroll their chosen possible candidates well in advance of an official run for office. Given that there is no practical or constitutional way to bar possible candidates from lucrative jobs, the only way to address this inequity, and the overall increasing gap between the rich and poor in terms of electability and political power, is to fight hard for complete and mandatory public financing of all campaigns. Unless candidates are forced to be judged solely by their messages rather than their (and their friends', family members' and employers') cash reserves, we remain subject to the kind of unregulated, blatant money toss that is seemingly at the heart of Fox News' recent hiring practices. {ProfJonathan}