Wealthier Candidates, Wealthier Campaigns

During the last unit, we discussed the different ways candidates can finance their campaigns: limited PAC donations, individual donations, and personal wealth, among others. This got me thinking about the disproportionate funding this could create for candidates who are not as wealthy. Because of the ability to use personal wealth for campaigns, candidates who are more wealthy can get more money to fund and improve their campaigns. Wouldn’t this give wealthier candidates a larger advantage? This could even give the public the impression that people who are richer would be better presidents because of the superior campaign advertising that promotes them more strategically and positively. I looked into the policies a bit to answer some of these questions. Apparently, while the funds must be reported accordingly, candidates can spend unlimited amounts of their personal money on their campaigns. In fact, this concept of financial advantage contributing to campaign advantage is seen in another finance loophole: to get past fund limits, rich politicians have used debt retirement to contribute money back to their campaigns. Andrew Mayersohn claims, “The debt retirement loophole gives candidates more time to solicit the biggest possible contribution from donors.” It seems to me that this system is flawed. Since more campaign funding creates more opportunity to expose candidates positively to the public and gain more votes, and since wealthier candidates have easier access to less limited funding, this system gives advantage to wealthier candidates. It makes it more likely for the government to be comprised of primarily rich citizens and therefore not representative of the population. It seems to me that campaign finance is riddled with sketchy, unsavory, and unfair loopholes like these that give disproportionate advantages to either wealthier candidates or wealthier voters. Do you think there are any ways these disparities are being or can be addressed? Or is it inevitable that wealthy politicians will always have that financial edge on their competition?