The jockeying for position in both parties for the 2008 presidential race is already hot--maybe even hotter because of President Bush’s travails.

On the Democratic side, Sens. Joseph Biden (Del.), Evan Bayh (Ind.) and Russ Feingold (Wis.) and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and outgoing Virginia Gov. Mark Warner have all emerged in the public eye in the past week or so to signal their interest in the big prize. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) doesn’t have to do anything for partisans, the media and everybody else to focus on her Bigfoot status.
 
And the same is true of Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) on the Republican side. Other GOP contenders, such as Sen. George Allen (Va.), Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) and Sen. Bill Frist (Tenn.) also are finding ways to get onto the radar screens of potential primary voters, caucus-goers, and delegates.

Wherever I go, the second question, after the war in Iraq, is, “How would you handicap the White House pretenders/contenders?” There is something about human nature that has people as curious about the race ahead as the world today.

In my response, I give audiences a giant caveat: This time, keep in mind that the presidential campaign financing system is broken. Money will be even more crucial to the survival or feasibility of candidates than ever. Any handicapping has to take into account that if changes to the system aren’t made, no viable candidate will be able to buy into it--that is, to take the bargain of receiving matching funds for contributions up to $250 in return for spending limits in each state and overall.

Actually, I think it’s increasingly likely that in 2008, for the first time, the two parties’ presidential candidates will forgo the huge public grant for the general election campaign and go it on their own.

Why? Because the system, established in 1976 after the Supreme Court’s Buckley v. Valeo decision, has not adjusted the amounts for inflation since.

Just look at the numbers. A candidate who accepts the limits in 2008 will have to agree to an overall spending limit for the entire nominating season--right up to the party convention--of about $45 million.

Perhaps no candidate will have the success that President Bush and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) had in 2004. Opting out of the system, they raised about $270 million and $235 million, respectively, in contributions of $2,000 or less. But, with individual contribution limits now up to $2,300 due to indexing for inflation, some candidates will clearly come close. And even if they are not that close, they will have enough to fully swamp the poor schnooks who labor under a $45 million ceiling, not to mention the draconian limits in each state.

“So what?” is the question many observers might ask. The conservative Republicans who tried to zero out the presidential funding system entirely in last month’s budget battles didn’t get that far--they just saw an opening and an excuse to kill a long-standing reform for which they had a visceral distaste. But those who would ask the question deserve an answer.

It starts with this: A nonfunctioning system will give inordinate advantage to independently wealthy individuals, ideologues, or demagogues who can tap into a reservoir of funds from those who share intensely held views, and perhaps frontrunners who can stockpile funds early, leaving no room for a lesser- known candidate who excites voter interest by his or her campaigning in early state contests.

I don’t have anything against money in politics. The fact is, it costs a lot to run a reasonable presidential campaign. But fundraising should not be the only, or even the central, requirement for a presidential nomination. And it should not be so important that it dominates every other candidate activity. Even now, at this ridiculously early stage, we can see the distortions in the process. Biden is heading out on a tour that is designed simply to see if he can raise the $30 million down payment to begin to compete for the Democratic nomination.

Interestingly, this time both parties have a problem with a broken system, and for the Republicans, the situation may even be worse.

In 2008 there will be no George W. Bush, who began in 2000 with such broad yearning for a viable GOP nominee that people were lining up to give him the maximum individual contribution (then $1,000) or who had the advantage of incumbency in 2004. If there is someone whose scenario comes close to his this time around, it is Clinton. But Clinton (and McCain) notwithstanding, every other potential candidate in both parties would be better served if a viable alternative funding option existed. And McCain, as usual, is supporting reform even if it would not work to his advantage.

Some time ago, the savvy former GOP campaign lawyer Michael Toner, who now sits on the Federal Election Commission, grasped the problem and stepped up to the plate along with fellow Commissioner Scott Thomas, a Democrat. They came up with a constructive, reasonable and pragmatic restoration plan, to sharply raise the primary spending limit overall and state by state, to double the match from $250 to $500 and to index everything for inflation. They would make other positive changes, including raising the threshold a candidate must meet to qualify for matching funds, making them available earlier in the process and raising sharply the check-off amount on tax returns used to finance the system (and indexing that to inflation, too).

The case for doing this is strong--but at this point, the prognosis for action is dim. The party leaders have not focused on this at all. Legislation on campaign finance reform, whatever the substance, is anathema to many Republicans. There is no leadership from the White House. And in any event, the policy process in Congress is so dysfunctional that creating a climate for doing anything, much less gaining momentum, is difficult to imagine. A conference to make the case for reform, co-sponsored by the Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21, Toner and Thomas, will be held Friday on Capitol Hill. I would recommend that all putative presidential candidates attend--and then put some muscle behind the Toner-Thomas plan.

Norman J. Ornstein is a resident scholar at AEI.