Show-Me the Money!
This week’s edition of the St. Louis Business Journal contained an interesting, “Political Pull,” naming and discussing some of Missouri’s biggest contributors to the Obama and McCain campaigns. Between the two candidates, they amassed a combined $4,075,353. Missouri is not only a bellwether state, but also a crucial tossup state for the 2008 presidential election.
Reading this article, and thinking about the colossal figures being given to both campaigns, I could not help but remember some of the campaign finance reform that had occurred in Missouri. In their final hour of session back in May, Missouri lawmakers passed legislation repealing Missouri’s campaign contribution limits. Just in the governor’s race alone, candidates are expected to raise between $8 and $12 million. This law, which was went into effect on August 28, could leave many state candidates screaming “Show me the money!”
There is much dissonance within political ideologies when it comes to campaign finance. Just last February, two Missouri state senators each wrote completely opposite bills — one throwing out campaign contribution limits, another pushing a plan for public campaign financing. Does this cross the lines of our First Amendment, or do limits really clean up our government? I would love for you to post your ideas.
Campaign finance restrictions very clearly limit not only free expression, but also the freedom of association and, arguably, the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
As has been frequently commented by American courts, the unfettered exchange of political ideas is at the very heart of our nation’s ability to function as a democratic republic. Campaign finance restrictions limit citizens’ abilities to express their support for a candidate or idea either through purchasing advertisements or offering financial help to those they hope to see elected. Political expression cannot be considered “free” if the government is allowed to limit the form, content, or quantity of the ideas expressed.
Additionally, campaign finance restrictions are enacted from a paternalistic assumption that voters will be incapable of distinguishing quantity from quality. An emblematic concern is that if one side of an election is permitted to raise and spend much more than the other side, voters will simply vote for the loudest, most visible candidate. This insults the intelligence of the electorate. If we truly believe that people are so easily swayed in their voting behaviors, then perhaps we should re-think the wisdom of our reliance on elections altogether. In any event, the solution simply cannot be that those in power get to decide what types of political messages are permissible, when they may be broadcast, and by whom the bills will be paid.
Another concern, and the one on which campaign finance restrictions have been judicially upheld, is that the unlimited ability to contribute to political campaigns allows wealthy donors to “buy” government officials, ensuring influence and favors. To be sure, this is a totally legitimate concern, as this sort of influence-purchasing definitely happens. But the crux of the matter is that everyday citizens have the ability to break this practice, if they determine to do so, because they alone choose who they will vote for. As a voter I would much rather vote for a candidate who chooses to reject massive contributions than one who might feel obligated to grant special treatment to those who bankrolled their campaign. But ultimately this is a test of character for all involved, the potential donors, the candidates, and the voters alike. If you don’t want campaign donations to be a major factor in elections, you should nominate, support, and elect people committed to pursue office without extraordinary financial support from those wanting to purchase political influence. But don’t sacrifice constitutional liberties simply because there isn’t sufficient demand for this type of candidate.
Comment by Dave Roland — August 29, 2008 @ 3:58 p.m.
Restrictions on fundraising and advertising windows also elevate the role of the media (reporters, editors, owners). If a candidate or a person can’t raise money to pay for ads and campaign material, he/she has to spend more time trying to get free favorable press coverage. So politicians will spend less time schmoozing with wealthy donors, and more time buttering up the press. Not that they haven’t always spent plenty of time doing both of those things.
Actually, the restrictions on the timing of “electioneering” political ads seem worse to me than the fundraising restrictions. More of an obvious first amendment violation. I believe there have been some semi-successful court attacks on that already.
Comment by Mike S. — September 2, 2008 @ 4:18 p.m.