Heading into the Republican caucus in Iowa, Americans interested in the Republican side of the race had quite a cast of characters from which to choose. It appears to me that this is a political ethics mess. Please note I am going to list them in alphabetical, not any kind of political or percentage order: 
Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, John Kasich, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum and Donald Trump.
Without turning this blog into either a Republican or Democratic rant, I want to ask a simple question: why? Why are some of these folks still in the race?
If we take the cast of characters above and break it down by percentages (and without mentioning names), 7 of the 11 candidates I have listed have 5 percent or less of the support of the likely caucus goers in Iowa.
The candidates at or near the bottom of the list have pretty much stayed there for months. They have not moved in the polls and they have consistently under-performed. For any number of reasons, they are not resonating with potential voters yet they cling to political life support. What a political ethics mess!
So what’s the Catch?
America loves the underdog, we always have. It is why most of us never have the Final Four brackets rationally filled out; it is why we bet 100-1 long-shots in horseracing, or why we buy penny-stocks. Not quite always, but most typically, our long-shots burn our money. If we elect to plunk down a couple of bucks on a lottery ticket, so be it; no one is harmed. What about a political race for the most powerful position in the world, what then? The under-dog issue becomes much more complex and troubling.
The first issue is a matter of financial support. A candidate with a 2 percent share in potential voter support is still allowed to solicit funds. While it is true that they can’t keep money for “personal” use, they can donate any leftover funds to charities, to pay off campaign expenses or it can be given to a political party. Political ethics, at least to me, would dictate that a person having no chance of winning would be better served using their voice to help those who do have a chance.
So candidates with virtually no chance of getting elected can keep asking for money. At what point does the flow of money stop? Does that money buy power or influence or standing? It certainly could! If a failed candidate donates a seven-figure amount to a major charity and two years later, the candidate becomes the executive director of that charity or an allied charity, who would be the wiser?
There is another question that rather bothers me. Suppose a minor candidate decides to simply slow down? In other words, keep collecting money but let the influx of funds help to pay off any personal campaign expenses? Who would know?
If I am reading the rules and regulations carefully enough, it does appear as though secret service protection is afforded to candidates who at least have national recognition in several caucuses. Even a candidate who has 10 percent of support or less is entitled to secret service protection. Who pays for that? We do! How much is secret service protection for 11 candidates? Let’s not forget that many of the under-card candidates still hold political office or have jobs. They don’t lose that income while on the campaign trail.
Summarizing the two points above, an underdog candidate can continue to solicit funds, can get us to pay for their protection and can still suck up any salaries they are paid. Political ethics at its best – NOT!
Clutter
Is it for show? Are candidates who have no chance of winning still in the racee as a kind of audition for other political office? Suppose they are honing their skills and making their appearances on the news shows to audition for political appointments or even television/cable programs?
Even if they have no other aspirations, how can we cut through the on-stage clutter of 11 candidates? Eleven candidates are standing up there yelling, posturing and promoting. How can any voter decide on the best candidate, let alone a caucus attendee with 11 people strutting their stuff?
At what point is a “boom lowered,” where the party reaches out and says, thank you “bottom 8,” but you’re done? Why is the process taking so long and what is gained by an underdog with no chance cluttering the picture?
Now Democrats, no one is letting you off the hook either. If the Republicans occupy the White House, how many Democratic candidates will crawl out from your woodwork? I am all for the “process,” but at what point, is the process undermining the very foundations of our government?
Someone needs to study the ethics of this process, and how much it is costing us to support their games.