Mayor Bloomberg should have let voters give away $100 million for his campaign

Congratulations to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who won his third term as mayor, after spending close to $100 million on the campaign.

This was his money; he earned it, and in America you choose how to spend your money. As a practical matter, however, I think that Mayor Bloomberg could have accomplished his reelection goal while donating most of that money to improving the lives of New York's least fortunate citizens.

Here's how: First, set aside maybe $10 million for traditional campaign expenses - an office, staff, public appearances, press interviews, and a solid Web site infrastructure. Then, put $90 million into a pool that will be donated to New York City charities over the 10 weeks leading up to the election. Each week, voters go to Mayor Bloomberg's campaign web site, register in his database (with appropriate precautions to confirm the person is an individual voter), and then select from a list of local charities who they would like to receive a $1 donation from the Bloomberg campaign. Each Saturday night, the selections are tallied and checks are presented to the charities in a nice public appearance (covered in the Sunday papers, of course). The next week, the donation amount may grow (or shrink) depending on how many voters directed contributions.

Instead of political activitists calling you during dinner to support their candidate, the PTA and local Boys & Girls Club would be hanging out at the grocery store, asking you to visit the Bloomberg campaign site and help them raise money for a new computer or trip to the Capitol. By the end of the campaign New York City schools and charities would be $90 million richer, Mayor Bloomberg might have a nice tax deduction, and the publicity and goodwill from this campaign would far outstretch anything his mailers, robo-calls, radio and TV ads could have done.