How would you like to elect I. M. Wimpus to the governor’s office in the 2003 election? You may have that chance if you think its only politics as usual in Frankfort this month.

The average Kentuckian is most likely unaware of the importance of the current struggle of those in the General Assembly – but the two political parties sure are. Of course the budget is important, but it could, AND SHOULD have been settled during the regular session. Why wasn’t it? The answer is found in the underlying power struggle for the governor’s mansion in 2003 – just $9 million of public campaign monies in a proposed state budget of over $15 billion. At stake is the state’s highest office and at issue through this budget battle is who is going to pay for the campaign – taxpayers or citizen donors.

Who are the players? First, there’s Gov. Paul Patton, leader of the state’s Democratic Party. He enjoys the honor of being the first governor to succeed himself since the ratification of the succession amendment in 1992. But he also has a negative legacy that he must overcome and some political realities pressing him. He has the dubious distinction of being the first Democratic gubernatorial candidate in 35 years to come close to losing to a Republican. In addition, it was on his watch that the leadership of the state senate was turned over to the Republicans for the first time – ever. To add to the load, Patton needs some kind of strong showing to build momentum in his bid for Jim Bunning’s U.S. Senate seat in 2004. But most importantly, Patton, as the leader of the Democratic Party in Kentucky, needs finances to block the gubernatorial advances of our second major player. Patton must protect the Democrat’s turf – the governor’s mansion in 2003.

The second player is Sen. Mitch McConnell. McConnell is simply trying to expand Republican turf – into the governor’s office. He’s also a man well known for questioning the constitutionality of campaign reform, so the current battle over Patton’s plan to finance gubernatorial campaigns is not likely to intimidate him. As head of Kentucky Republicans, he maintains that when Republicans have the resources to get their message out, they win – at least in Kentucky.

The facts seem to prove him right. Consider that in 1990 our Democratic delegation to Washington consisted of one U. S. Senator and four Congressmen. Now, only one Congressman represents the Democratic Party while Republicans hold the seven other seats. And worse for the Democrats, none of the Republican seats have been severely threatened since they were acquired. Their message got out, and has taken root. .

So we, as the citizenry, are left with a decision. Should we support government-funded (taxpayer-funded) campaigns for governor? (Which should help the Democrats, particularly given their statewide connections as a result of holding the mansion for 31 years.) Or should we let the candidates raise their own funds as far and as wide as they are able to persuade others to follow their lead? (And recent history seems to say this approach favors the Republicans.)

Principles of leadership tell us that those who would vie to lead should demonstrate that leadership by convincing citizens to join in their vision. Asking them to financially underwrite their efforts is a form of leadership, subject, of course, to the campaign finance disclosure laws that are currently on the books. If they can’t sell themselves and their wares to donors, then let them run on empty. If they can, let them campaign with that support, sending their ideas through the airwaves. Then, at that point, the entire state can affirm or reject those ideas by voting for or against that leader.

In this way, we – Republican or Democrat – won’t be stuck with some kind of wimpy, policy wonk who is ill-equipped to govern but is elevated with public monies into the realm of a "real candidate." That is nothing more than the Peter Principle financed by a political welfare system – an individual raised to his level of incompetence by artificial empowerment.

Instead, when we get a candidate who can convince the public to give them their hard-earned money, we get a man or a woman who can persuasively lead people. And that is what a governor must do – persuasively lead.