Because I don’t care very much about campaign finance and because I don’t care very much about John Kerry, I haven’t cared very much about John Kerry’s campaign finances. But apparently lots of folks think this is an interesting topic, including Slate’s Tim Noah.
The gist of the story is that Kerry’s wife — who’s also John Heinz’s rich widow — can’t give him lots of money because of their prenup and the current campaign finance laws. So he’s going to borrow money against his house instead. Maybe this has all been covered somewhere — again, I don’t really care — but let’s assume he lose his presidential bid. Not a crazy assumption, right? Couldn’t his wife just pay off his debts after the campaign? I mean it’s not like he’s going to have to sell his house. Couldn’t he just borrow like nuts on the assumption that his wife will make post-facto donations to his campaign by clearing his debts for him? And if so, doesn’t that just demonstrate how absurd these laws are? I mean what’s the difference between giving someone money and promising someone that their debts will be covered?
Or am I missing something?