What we talk about when we talk about viability

Here's a dirty little secret of the campaign world. Specifically of those who endorse candidates for elective office.

They will send you questionnaires by the boatload. They will grill you on your positions on all the issues they care about. They will ask about your background and experience and judge how well you present yourself. They may tell you they are mightily impressed with your credentials.

Then they will ask about your viability. That's Viability, spelled M-O-N-E-Y. Yes, money is what they want to know about. How much of it do you have? How much can you raise? And how much do you need to win your election.

If the equation comes out lopsided, that is you don't have enough, or as much as the other guy, they are likely to decide your candidacy is not viable. Say bye bye to that endorsement you know you were most suited to receive.

And you thought it was all about qualifications to do the job, integrity and a willingness to work hard.

Sorry, Charlie, it's all about the money. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the key organizations don't endorse you because you don't have the money, you can't get the money from those who are waiting to see what the endorsers do. 

Nobody wants to back a loser, and they're not willing to take a chance on you by helping your campaign get off the ground with their endorsement and the contribution that usually goes with it.

And so it goes. This is how we get second rate candidates in office, who are beholden to special interests. They take the money from all and sundry, thereby looking "viable" to the endorsers.

They get the endorsement. They win the race, and then people are surprised when those they elected get caught in messy "pay to play" schemes, and are forced to leave their positions prematurely to "spend more time with their families."