Campaign Finance laws are really incumbent protection laws
August 24th 2010 18:20
If you want elections to matter, then you need to be able to fire your elected representatives. This is nearly impossible because of the campaign finance laws. These laws are really incumbent protection laws. They make it almost impossible for challengers to raise competitive funding, while doing almost nothing to control the true causes of government corruption.
We were told that the campaign finance laws -- the contribution limits and the reporting requirements -- would curtail or even prevent corruption. Now, with 40 years of experience, we know that they do the exact opposite.
Powerful special interests have more control than ever. While it may be true that campaign contributions "buy" some small amount of access, or influence, it's very clear that other factors are far more important.
Politicians say yes to special interests because they want to. It makes them feel powerful. They would be of little importance if they constantly said no. Controlling campaign contributions has NO impact on this problem. They would continue to serve special interests even if voluntary campaign contributions were completely prohibited, and all campaigns became tax-funded.
We also know that many politicians retire to lucrative positions working as lobbyists and serving on corporate boards. The politicians who best serve special interests will get the best of these jobs. The campaign finance laws have no impact on this.
Instead, the campaign finance laws actually foster corruption by protecting incumbent office holders in their positions of power. Hopefully, increasing numbers of Americans are realizing that the campaign finance laws are really incumbent protection laws.
When contributions are limited, one must raise more of them. That seems obvious, right? Incumbents solve this problem through access. Special interests line up to provide clusters of checks for the officeholder to keep his door open. But the challenger, with no real power, is left with a task equivalent to filling a swimming pool with a teaspoon. Who lines up to support the challenger?
When contributions are publicly reported, checks to incumbents are risk-free. But supporting a challenger might close the officeholder's door, or worse, put a group or industry on the schedule for political retribution.
Thus, challengers are almost always underfunded (unless they are rich). This "underfundedness" creates the following perverse outcome . . .
Congress is hated, but the members of Congress are constantly re-elected.
If something like this were to happen in the private sector politicians would point to it as a supposed market failure, and they would rush to pass laws about it. But because this is a failure of The State that benefits THEM, the campaign finance laws are strengthened rather than repealed. But surely they must realize . . .
At some point this fraud will become so obvious to so many people that they will lose the consent of the governed, if they have not lost it already.
I want them to honor their Constitutional oath of office. The First Amendment says that Congress shall make NO law curtailing the freedoms of speech, press, and assembly. The campaign finance laws do all three. Please ask your representatives to introduce legislation to repeal all of the campaign finance laws.
We were told that the campaign finance laws -- the contribution limits and the reporting requirements -- would curtail or even prevent corruption. Now, with 40 years of experience, we know that they do the exact opposite.
Powerful special interests have more control than ever. While it may be true that campaign contributions "buy" some small amount of access, or influence, it's very clear that other factors are far more important.
We also know that many politicians retire to lucrative positions working as lobbyists and serving on corporate boards. The politicians who best serve special interests will get the best of these jobs. The campaign finance laws have no impact on this.
Instead, the campaign finance laws actually foster corruption by protecting incumbent office holders in their positions of power. Hopefully, increasing numbers of Americans are realizing that the campaign finance laws are really incumbent protection laws.
When contributions are limited, one must raise more of them. That seems obvious, right? Incumbents solve this problem through access. Special interests line up to provide clusters of checks for the officeholder to keep his door open. But the challenger, with no real power, is left with a task equivalent to filling a swimming pool with a teaspoon. Who lines up to support the challenger?
Thus, challengers are almost always underfunded (unless they are rich). This "underfundedness" creates the following perverse outcome . . .
Congress is hated, but the members of Congress are constantly re-elected.
If something like this were to happen in the private sector politicians would point to it as a supposed market failure, and they would rush to pass laws about it. But because this is a failure of The State that benefits THEM, the campaign finance laws are strengthened rather than repealed. But surely they must realize . . .
At some point this fraud will become so obvious to so many people that they will lose the consent of the governed, if they have not lost it already.
I want them to honor their Constitutional oath of office. The First Amendment says that Congress shall make NO law curtailing the freedoms of speech, press, and assembly. The campaign finance laws do all three. Please ask your representatives to introduce legislation to repeal all of the campaign finance laws.
| 63 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
