Is Fox Rewriting Campaign Finance Rules?

[Commentary] Were I to attempt to influence Texas Gov. Rick Perry's decision on joining the 2012 presidential race by writing him a check for a million dollars, I'd probably get a lot of critical media attention and risk prosecution for violating campaign finance laws. Were I to write him a check for the same amount in return for being my personal advisor or a television host on my network -- conditional on his staying out of the race -- I'd simply be quietly influencing the race in much the same way that Roger Ailes, president of Fox News, has.

There's a widespread belief that a major reason Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin have stayed out of the race is to retain their generous stipends from Fox -- reputed to be $500,000 and $1 million respectively, well beyond what either made as governor -- which refuses to retain a network personality formally in the presidential race. The question here isn't whether Fox is doing anything improper or whether this is part of a scheme by Roger Ailes to become GOP kingmaker, a role he's long allegedly aspired to, or perhaps GOP kingkiller. It is merely musing about whether we see the development of a new political tactic -- history suggests that such ideas spread far more quickly than the rules can be changed -- and whether we'll next see others -- Hollywood liberals offering production deals, Wall Street consulting contracts, corporate America speaking fees -- that will divert credible candidates who aren't rich enough to spurn such offers or egocentric enough to be single-minded about their candidacy. Such a development probably wouldn't improve the candidate pool in the years ahead.