As I travel the nation and the world speaking to arts leaders, there is one phenomenon I observe virtually everywhere: arts organizations consistently grow to the point where they are slightly uncomfortable financially.
Palin, Romney, Huckabee, Bachmann and the other Republican presidential aspirants have enjoyed a great deal of media exposure, but they have been unable to convince enough wealthy donors that their presidential hopes are plausible.
An arts organization that does fewer productions, but makes each of them incredibly interesting, engaging and of high quality, is better placed than one that does lots of under-funded, uninteresting weak projects each year.
Limiting spending in campaigns would give the senator time to listen. Lobbyists and special interests would be limited. There would be time to debate rather than fundraise. And the people would recoup their government.