WASHINGTON, DC--When the idea first floated several weeks ago that Pat Buchanan might seek the Reform Party nomination, most wrote it off as a publicity-getting bluff. It was viewed as a way for Buchanan to leverage some concessions from the Republican Party, such as a convention speech, which was denied to him at the Pastel Convention in San Diego in 1996, or some language in a trade plank of the platform. People around town kept saying Pat is simply too loyal a party man from way back in his Nixon days to jump ship for real. But over the last 10 days, and especially since the release of his new book, A Republic--Not an Empire, it has become apparent that Buchanan has simply gone--nuts.

Everyone has been quick to pounce on Pat’s quaint views about World War II, primarily the notion that, after 1940, Hitler posed no threat to the United States. While wrong, these views are not without some support from a handful of serious historians like John Lukacs and John Charmley. (References available by e-mail to the curious--send requests to hayward487@aol.com.) But the real story lies elsewhere.

If Pat runs on the Reform Party banner, this will make the second election in a row where the course of the election has been seriously warped by the rules on campaign finance "reform." In 1996, recall, Bob Dole ran up against the government-mandated spending limits in the spring, which meant that the unopposed President Clinton had a free field of fire over much of the summer. (And even this advantage didn’t keep him from cheating with foreign money anyway.) It may not have made much difference in 1996 as Dole was such a miserable candidate. Yet the point remains vindicated: the rules intended to create a "level playing field" did anything but.

There is no one in Washington who thinks that the $12 million in federal funds available to the Reform Party doesn’t figure into Buchanan’s calculations. That’s high among the reasons he recently lunched with Lenora Fulani in New York. Unknown to most voters, Fulani’s fringe-left New Alliance Party (NAP) has collected millions in federal campaign dollars over the years. She not only can deliver a block of fringe left votes for Buchanan within the Reform Party, but also can acquaint him with how better to milk the system. In this curious dialectic, a man who deplores government subsidies to corporations is being motivated by a huge government subsidy to make a run with the Reform Party. The lesson we should draw from this is clear.

Campaign finance "reform" has really been campaign finance "deform." The contribution limit has not been raised since 1974, meaning that a $1,000 contribution today is worth only about $325 in 1974 dollars. Real reform would junk or dramatically raise the donation limit, require full, instant disclosure over the Internet, and get the government out of the matching-fund business. Think the "Reform" Party will back such a reform? Don’t hold your breath.

-- Steven Hayward