A sign of political health

The AP reports: "Cost of winning Alabama legislative seats skyrockets."

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Members of the Alabama Legislature make about $30,000 a year for a part-time job that requires them to work three days a week during the three-month session, and occasionally a few extra days for special sessions or committee meetings.

So how come more than $1 million was spent by candidates in five Senate races — and in one House race the two candidates spent more than $75 per vote?

The cost of advertising, as well as the amount of money special interest groups are willing to spend to get their candidates into office, has escalated the cost of winning a House or Senate seat into the hundreds of thousands of dollars — a level one candidate in this year's elections described as "absurd."

No, it's not absurd. It's a healthy sign that candidates for public office in Alabama are finally having to compete for our votes.

For well over a century - since the end of Reconstruction - Alabamians overwhelmingly chose to elect their politicians from one party - the Democratic Party. However, over the past 30 years or so, political trends in the state have favored Republicans, who have only recently managed to convert their rising grass-roots popularity into prolific fundraising.

The rising cost of political campaiging doesn't bother me at all. If anything, it's a sign of new-found political health. That's certainly the case here in Alabama. For too long, politicians in this state were accustomed to winning election to public office on the cheap, for no other reason than that they either ran unopposed, or were challenged by candidates who were financially incapable of mounting competitive campaigns. Now that that has changed, some politicians - primarily incumbents - are complaining.

Tough luck. Competition is a good thing, in business and in politics. The proper reaction to this is for candidates to spend the money they have more effectively, not to implement campaign finance "reforms" that serve no other purpose than to restrict free speech and protect incumbents.