The state of Iowa is facing a budget deficit, but it's our Governor who is trying to pay off his “debts.”.  This lottery episode is an argument for public financing of election campaigns.

When rich donors drop $25,000 or so into a candidate's pocket, an implicit IOU has just been created.  The best way to pay off these “debts” is with public money, either tax cuts for the donor class, state  contracts for the contributors personally (see Bill Richardson), or sale of state assets like the lottery.

 The common objection to public financing for elections is “We don't want tax dollars going to politicians.”  This myopic argument forgets that politicans gain control of ALL the tax dollars once in office and too often use those dollars to pay back their “investors” (see Bernie Madoff).

 The irony is that Culver promised to consider public financing for elections during his run for office.  He has broken that promise.   

 Another irony is that none of the Republican bloggers who assailed Culver over the lottery bothered to look any deeper, except Krusty.  He went into some detail about big donors and what they expect in return (“we all know that Kehl has a motive, he wants to buy the Lottery. Kirke wants a casino license in Ottumwa, Sandquist wants an increase in the gas tax, and maybe Albaugh wants illegals to help keep his private golf course in tip top shape . . . .”) but his main objection was that the donors he named were Republicans.  Apparently if he'd be content if the donors would stick to fleecing the taxpayer through members of their own party only.

 Let's try the bi-partisan approach.  VanderP can have public financing for his race, Culver can have the same.  No more IOUs or done deals on the lottery or anything else.  Iowa Citizens for Communitiy Improvement surveyed Iowa donors last fall and found 73% supported public financing of campaigns.  Culver could get re-elected by following their lead.