New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg says he isn't running and can't win, according to the Associated Press:

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said -- again_ that he's not running for president, adding in a television interview that he wouldn't win anyway.

"Nobody's going to elect me president of the United States," he told Dan Rather for a program that will air Tuesday on cable's HDNet channel.

Read the rest at the above link. The article notes Bloomberg has consistently denied he's running, while also hinting he might, so the statement must be taken with a large grain of salt.

He's right that he couldn't possibly win, although his candidacy would certainly throw a wrench into the electoral calculations of both parties.

One of the many defects of the "Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act," and of contribution limits generally, is that the super-rich are empowered to contemplate self-financing campaigns, since spending on one's own campaign is (correctly) held to be an exercise of free political speech. The twisted logic which presumes donating to someone else's campaign is NOT political speech is the problem.

The idea that campaign donations necessarily "corrupt" politicians doesn't hold water. In virtually all the cases of political corruption we've seen on the federal level, the perpetrator manages to enrich himself and/or his family and cronies without needing to tap campaign funds, which are closely regulated. In those cases where campaign funds were involved, the existing rules were invariably broken. It's rather simplistic to assume we can stop people who break the law by passing new laws.

The best example arguing against contribution limits remains the upstart antiwar candidacy of Senator Eugene McCarthy in 1968. McCarthy challenged the sitting President of his own party, a desperate long-shot undertaking in any year. His campaign would never have gotten off the ground, though, without serious financing.

McCarthy's run was backed primarily by three major supporters, each of whom giving at least $1 million to his campaign (one gave over $3 mil). In those days, disclosure didn't even have to be made in a timely fashion. Was McCarthy "corrupted" by these well-to-do supporters? I think not - and that opinion is supported by his nickname: "Clean Gene."

An honest man won't be corrupted by large contributions, and a dishonest man will find a way to corruption no matter what limits may be in place. We can never "drive the money out of politics" so long as politicians apportion a budget of trillions of dollars annually. The best we can expect is openness: require full disclosure of every contribution before it can be deposited to the campaign account. Fine violators double the undisclosed amount, payable immediately.

That won't guarantee us more honest politicians, of course. It might help us get past the odious situation where a super-rich egotist like Bloomberg or Perot is taken seriously as a potential candidate simple because of his bank account, though.