Let’s start with the names the Koch team selected — former Florida governor Jeb Bush, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and the three freshmen senators. How did it select them, and what if one of them starts talking protectionism or tax hikes? It seems like an arbitrary handful of candidates, some of whom we know little about and others who may wind up nowhere near the top of the field. And what about others like former Texas governor Rick Perry?

Picking candidates by name ID or poll numbers this early in the race only underscores what we know to be true: Voters, not billionaires, pick candidates. We have heard about the “establishment” — whoever they are — getting into a room to pick the winner. We are told social conservative leaders are going to pick the winner. And now the Koch brothers. What, um, if they pick different people? There is frankly so much money sloshing around and so many candidates that it is virtually impossible to deny other candidates money. If one candidate gets $100 million from the Kochs, others can get equal or greater amounts elsewhere. Do the millions from the Kochs help? Sure, but their money is not remotely definitive.

AD

AD

Moreover, the idea that vying for Koch money will drive candidates to embrace a “small-government, free-market agenda” ignores that this is run-of-the-mill conservatism (at least limited government), which most every candidate already advocates.

It’s popular to bemoan the current campaign-finance landscape, where unlimited funds have been pushed out to third parties and billionaires, but in a real sense it has made money less important. If five guys have millions, then they’ve essentially just canceled one another out. And in a huge field in early, cheap-media-market states candidates with very little money can catch fire pretty quickly. (In the general election, of course, the GOP candidate will need money to level the playing field when the Clinton attack machine unloads. At that point, the nominee will need gobs and gobs of money.)

Being the handpicked candidate of the “establishment” or of “Koch Inc.” has its “drawbacks, to be certain. Voters resent being told who is “competitive” and who is not. All that said, this is one election in which third-party money and “dark money” is a much bigger problem for the Democrats.

AD

AD

In Hillary Clinton’s case, Goldman Sachs, foreign governments, uranium moguls, oligarchs doing business with Iran and other speech-fee payers and foundation donors carry implications of corruption and self-dealing. The Post reports, “The amount, about one-quarter of Clinton’s overall speaking income between 2001 and 2013, demonstrates how closely intertwined Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s charitable work has become with their growing personal wealth. . . . Now that she has formally entered the presidential race, the family may face political pressure and some legal requirements to provide further details of their personal finances and those of the foundation, giving voters a clearer view of the global network of patrons that has supported the Clintons and their work over the past 15 years.” Before, during and after her tenure as secretary of state, Hillary and Bill Clinton were awash in money from those currying favor, seeking influence and “investing” in a couple they were certain were in the revolving door spinning them back to the White House.