Campaign finance reform
| By John S. Pinto We are in the thick of the 2008 campaign season. These days, people who oppose your point of view but cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas, try to shut you up with campaign regulation, posing as 'reform.' Here in Wisconsin, we have just been through 'scandals' where leaders of the legislature have been convicted of using government money to advance their political parties' interests in the legislature. According to newspaper reports, it seems that some Democrats blocked legislation unless a contribution was made to their reelection fund, and some Republicans used a state employee on state time to raise money for their reelection fund. In the general scheme of things, these do not seem to be blatantly corrupt practices. It takes enormous amounts of money to get elected and one tends to use every advantage one has to stay elected. In 1996, an official of Common Cause complained that lobbyists with major interests in policy outcomes are able to give money to campaigns. She thought that this was corruption because they wanted to access and influence the political process. Campaign finance regulators say that if government is looking to tax you or regulate, you ought to lose your ability to participate in democracy. By this standard, it would be permissible to give money only to someone who opposes your point of view! Another view put forward by the regulators is the notion of “equal influence.” It would seem that a reason to get involved in politics is to have more influence than others. If we had equal influence, no one would have any influence and there would be no reason to participate in politics! America's founders, having just thrown off the yoke of British control, were well aware of the dangers of corruption. It can be said that the whole Constitution is dedicated to the proposition that corruption, if any, must be minimized. They set up a system of limited government with enumerated powers. This means that the government can exercise only those powers as established by the Constitution and nothing else. They divided the government into three branches and adopted the principle of federalism to divide power between the national government and the states. They supported the right of the people to assemble, speak and vote. The vote is the ultimate check on corruption. James Madison in Federalist 10 says that in seeking to control corruption, we should not destroy our liberties. Under the McCain-Feingold bill, the only ones left to speak are the academics, the press, the think tanks and the big foundations. Ordinary people have been relegated to the back of the bus. Over the years, the checks and balances on government power have eroded. The people who favor campaign finance changes are the same people who have favored this erosion of checks and balances. The only way to reform campaign finances is to follow the original articles of the Constitution. Since 1930, government has expanded at a furious rate and influenced every facet of our lives. The results of this expansion are low voter turnouts and rampant corruption. This corruption is mainly in the form of special interests spending huge amounts of money to get their people elected. It makes sense. If government policy (and not the marketplace) is so important to your survival, you will get involved in politics. As immigrants from Asia, most of us have come from countries with corrupt regimes. Unfortunately, too many of us support the same types of policies in this country. It is hard to understand. |
John Pinto's column
