Rothbardian Thoughts on Campaign Finance
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.
It’s quite simple to take note of what the elected crooks vote for. Then don’t re-elect them. Duh. The proponents of Campaign Finance Reform imply that the voters are idiots.
Of course, we must use the military to spread democracy to multi-ethnic socialist countries, like Iraq and Syria where the winning ethnic group then controls entire economy. That’ll work, right?.
http://original.antiwar.com/updates/2014/04/24/73-killed-79-wounded-in-ongoing-iraq-bloodshed/
Both statements are ignorant.
Re #2: The elected officials do not get to hand pick who gets the money when a campaign is publicly financed.
Re #3: The 1st Amendment rights of the donor are infringed upon if a politician is punished for accepting a donation from that person. You are incorrect to claim that govt has the power to police political donations in that manner.
Note also that the word is power, not right. Right refers to a limitation on govt’s power. Saying the legislators have “every right ” to do that makes no sense.
Re Re #2: As I understand Bob, he was referring to the “logical limit.” Efforts to reform the electoral process (voter ID laws, Gerrymandering, campaign finance reform, etc.) are motivated by the cynical desire to win future elections. The logical limit of politicians attempting to control future elections is them achieving total control over the outcomes of future “elections.”
Re Re #3: Bob was suggesting that the major political parties police their own members. I agree that if they passed a law punishing politicians for taking donations it would violate donors’ rights, but political parties can set their own internal rules without violating anyone’s rights so long as membership in the party is voluntary.
“As I understand Bob, he was referring to the “logical limit.”” But Bob seems to be saying that as soon as we ban private campaign donations and get public financing of elections, we will have arrived at this “logical limit” where the government chooses who the two candidates are.
I would be careful throwing around claims of ignorance- Murphy’s #2 is pretty clearly true on its face- giving Congress the sole power to finance elections via the public purse necessarily gives Congress the power to direct that money to whichever candidates it deems suitable.
“Murphy’s #2 is pretty clearly true on its face- giving Congress the sole power to finance elections via the public purse necessarily gives Congress the power to direct that money to whichever candidates it deems suitable.” But what if the only criterion that Congress provides for suitability is having a certain number of signatures on a petition, similar to the system that’s used to determine who gets to be on ballot? In that case it wouldn’t be true that “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. “
What if it isn’t the only criterion is the question you should be asking. And let’s assume you are right- what if Congress sets a high number for the petition to shut out candidates without the support of a major party?
(Note: I realize that Joe is a troll, but I can’t help myself.)
Re re #3: You’re a dope if you think that the first amendment prevents political parties from setting internal campaign finance guidelines.
I would suggest that the real problem is that the amount of power for so many is in the hands of so few rather than the amount of money that is spent by them getting their message out.
Since technically it is the VOTER that counts then why does it matter how much money is spent unless of course the people voting don’t do any research on the issues, in which case you are assuming that they are ONLY going to vote for the name they heard before.
Anyway, why fight over a non issue. Heck I say let the cooperation spend millions ‘buying’ politicians. Then let people get pissed that those corporations get special treatment and through those fools out. Heck make all elections every two years on top of that.
SCOTUS should accept whatever law congress enacts to restrict contributions but only apply it to members of congress (since they can set their own rules, anyway). That would solve the problems of:
(a) barriers to entry, also known as incumbency
(b) ever expanding, confusing, and counter-productive campaign “reform” laws
Good points.
Another extreme: If they ban all private donations of money, and the Supreme Court ruled that money is a form of speech, what is to stop them from banning all private speech from politics?
Something scarier: some people think that the First Amendment should be taken to guarantee that everyone has equally effective speech, which would be about as destructive.
“No! Not acceptable! Your voice is too pleasant! This could convince too many people too agree with you.”
That comment got WAY too many upvotes.
Great point about equally effective speech.
If people want to be easily swayed, that’s their right. They are under no obligation to listen to anyone.
Besides, just about anyone can offer to trade someone something in exchange for listening to you. They get some stuff at the low price of having to listen to you spout off. Win/win.
“Act now, and see if you can stand to talk to me for more than four seconds.”