Sorry, but the ability to raise money is one important test of the viability of a candidate. Money is the Mother's milk of politics. That is simply a reality.
The candidate doesn't have to be personally rich, but he needs money to build a campaign organization, make media buys, travel around the country, etc. I hope you are not one of those campaign finance reform types who tries to restrict political speech or call for public financing of elections.
>> Sorry, but the ability to raise money is one important test of the viability of a candidate. Money is the Mother’s milk of politics. That is simply a reality. >>
I do hate CFR by the way. As for the above, you are right in a technical sense but you simply will not access some mitigating facts.
First, the internet and social media has made money less important than it used to be - as folks can get well known and supported much quicker. This rule is a throw back to old school ground attack. I just don’t think this needs to apply any more.
Second, you assume the rule is perfect in assessing a candidate’s strength in order to keep the ballot clear of the totally fringe candidates. I would submit that having five of seven candidates miss the mark is an indictment of the rules effectiveness.
These 7 candidates have all passed a number of tests to varying degrees. A test that the leader in the national and in the Virginia opinion polls flunks with respects to viability is a test that has shown itself to be fatally flawed.