As usual, I am not satisfied with even the libertarian commentary on the Supreme Court ruling that came out earlier this month. So I am making some points that may be elementary but nonetheless should be stressed. An excerpt:
(2) The reason politicians are interested in “campaign finance reform” is that it gives them even tighter control over who controls the State apparatus. In the logical limit, where all private donations are banned and elections are “publicly financed,” we would have the farce of reigning government officials hand-picking two possible successors every time a position opens up, and then letting the public cast votes on those two people. Call such a system whatever you will, but don’t use the term “democracy.”
(3) If the U.S. Congress really wanted to deter wealthy groups from giving them money, then the Republican and Democratic parties could adopt policies stating that any of their members who accepts donations higher than $X from a single group, will not be placed on any committees and no other Republicans/Democrats will vote for legislation supported by such rogue officials. Until Republican and Democratic parties adopt such internal rules–which they have every right to implement since they are just announcing how their own members will behave–then I don’t believe them when they tell Americans how much they lament the corroding influence of money in U.S. politics.