September 1998
by Ryan Lee Stollar
The Presidential Campaign Fund Act. The Federal Election Commission Act. The Federal Election Fund Act. What do all of these have in common? The answer is simple: campaign finance reform. Campaign finance reform has been an issue in the United States since the early 1900's, and has been around long before that in other countries. Convincing arguments have been given by both sides. However, the truth is that controlling campaign financing is a sheer violation of the 1st Amendment freedoms, such as speech, assembly, and press. Those on the other side believe that regulations are necessary to prevent corruption, increase political activity, and strengthen democracy. While these are great goals to attain, controlling campaign finances is the wrong way to do it. Throughout this article you shall come to understand the problems of controlling campaign finances, and be able to logically attack the fallacies given by those who support this control.
Dealing with the issue of corruption: Politicians and the American People need to realize there is a big difference between corruption and influence. Corruption is an evil intent to bribe or trick someone to support your views, while influence is just trying to get someone to support you without any foul play involved. America is a democratic republic; a government by the people, for the people, and of the people. Guess who's opinion should be imposed on the government? The America public's! Guess who is supposed be influencing our representatives? The American public! Giving money to a political canidate who supports your views is not at all bribery or corruption, its just a fundamental part of a democracy!
Another fallacy given by campaign finance controllers is that more legislation will increase political activity. Quite the contrary is true: the more government takes from us, the less we do! This is common sense! When in American History has government legislation meant to stop something while increasing it actually stopped something while increasing it? Are you confused by that questions? You should be, for its completely illogical! How are you supposed to control involvement in campaigning while increasing involvement? You simply do not!
Are you starting to see the picture? Laws that control campaign finances are based on faulty, illogical assumptions!
The last issue you need to know how to deal with is whether or not campaign finance laws actually strengthen our democracy. The main way these laws are supposed to do this is by giving challengers a fair chance against incumbents; a challenger is someone new running for office, an incumbent is someone who is in office and running for re-election. If you properly analze this claim, you will see from just gumption that this is completely irrational and absurd. Let me give you an example: During an election for mayor, two people are canidates. The first one is currently the mayor, and running for re-election. His face is already in the media everyday, and everyone knows him. The other man, though, has never ran for political office, and only the people in his neighborhood know who he is. He is desperately trying to become known, because he currently has no contacts in the media, unlike the incumbent (the current mayor). So, the challenger is going to need to raise a lot more money than the incumbent will, because he is less known. But because of new campaign finance laws, he is very limited on how much he can raise. The mayor, on the other hand, does not need to raise as much money because he is already known.
So, as you can see from this example, it is irrational and foolish to assume that campaign finance regulations will strengthen democracy. Just because the American people are trying to get their opinion into the government doens1t mean that corruption is involved. In fact, money is a key element in keeping politics clean and run by the will of the people. Edward H. Crane, President of the Cato Institute, stated this regarding the issue of campaign finance reform: "Money will remain in politics. Money must remain in politics. As issues become more complicated and technology more complex, even more money will be need to ensure an open political system. Driving money out of the campaign gives a powerful advantage to canidates with powerful friends such as celebrities and unions. Further limits will similarily enhance the power of the media. Indeed, as the Supreme Court's decisons made clear: 'dollars are not suffed into ballot boxes. The mediating factor that turns money into votes is speech.' The fervor to ban or limit soft money is based on impressions created by those who have the most to gain from their demise. Further restrictions on soft money and PACs will only increase the power of incumbents, millionaires, and the media, distort political debate and infringe on First Amendment rights. Millions of Americans will have their right of free association trampled and see valuable and irreplaceable sources of information evaporate."
Campaign finance reform will not strengthen democracy. Instead, it will decay and hurt democracy. Not only will it do this, but it will crush the freedoms of speech and assembly, and silence the voices of the American people.
Ryan Lee Stollar is the President of the Center for American Freedom
Check out other Policy Analyses by the Center for American Freedom!
