... I'm only partly joking; I am not a fan of the idea that there are some special gatekeepers or One True Process™ for determining who's allowed to talk to voters.
The things Bloomberg has meaningfully "wrong" in terms of process look something like this:
- he is be a rich person (definitely not trendy in the party), and...
- his failure to solicit donations deprives people of one meaningful test of his political appeal, instead
- he spends his own money on politics instead: an uncool, Constitutionally protected exercise of the First Amendment, which has an unfortunate interaction with the political narrative that _Citizens United_ must be restored (though in fact it wouldn't stop him from doing this)
Needless to say, arguing about some of these "violations" is actually in practice just arguing about ideology and might be more effectively approached as such.
Politics lately seems to be:1) paint candidate in the best light, 2) paint opponent in the worst light.
Note: there is no requirement to have a consistent set of rules to do this.
Mark Twain: Running for Governor [Written about 1870]
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3189/3189-h/3189-h.htm#gover...
I'm not convinced the typical process as far as there being two viable parties and running through the wringer of their processes, is something that is particularly great at producing good candidates, or that someone bypassing that legally is a bad thing.