Free-Market Campaign Finance Reform

April 9, 2009

Free-Market Campaign Finance Reform

Campaign finance regulation has been a very big deal on both the state and national levels for some time. Advocates for sharp restrictions on the amount that any given person can donate to a political candidate argue that, all too frequently, contributions are used to buy influence and access to lawmakers. Opponents of campaign finance restrictions point out that people have a constitutional right to support and publicize the political candidates they prefer and the political issues that are important to them. As with so many issues, I appreciate the concerns expressed by those who favor regulation — after all, it is a very rare politician who is willing to offer the average constituent the same respect and access afforded to the largest donors — but clamping down on people’s freedoms is a poor way to address this concern.

There is a freedom-respecting solution! Even more than campaign contributions, politicians respect votes. I propose that a group of voters simply pledge to cast their ballots based on how much money the candidates raise — and the lower the amount of contributions, the better. If as few as five percent of registered voters (which in many elections could be a decisive margin) committed to voting for candidates with smaller campaign “war chests,” I’d wager that politicians would quickly respond by de-emphasizing the importance of fundraising.

What do you think?

« Read Previous Entry Read Next Entry »

9 Wordpress Comments »

What if the reason the candidate can’t raise any money is because they are reasonably viewed to be a poor candidate who would make a terrible elected official? Then you just committed to vote for a bad candidate. Third party candidates may often be quality candidates who just struggle to raise money, but within the two main parties an inability to raise money can be reasonably correlated with not being a very good candidate in the first place (with plenty of exceptions).

Comment by David Stokes — April 9, 2009 @ 5:03 p.m.
I think the question here, Dave, is just how upset people are by the idea that moneyed interests hijack the democratic process. If someone is convinced (as they might reasonably be) that this is a major problem, they should absolutely be willing not only to make a stand like this but to encourage their favored candidates to court like-minded people by refusing to accept large donations. Keep in mind, as well, that the relatively small number of voters likely to commit to this course of action may be large enough to cause a major party candidate to lose an election, but will probably not be large enough to win an election for a third party candidate. If a group’s primary goal is to drive candidates away from the crazy-expensive campaigns that have become more and more common, necessitating reliance on big money donors, this strategy has some real potential.

Comment by Dave Roland — April 9, 2009 @ 5:28 p.m.
It’s a war strategy, not a battle strategy. That is, it may not make sense to make this the basis for a vote in a particular race when considered in isolation, but as races aggregate over time, in theory it could have a net overall “positive” effect. Not that I would participate, myself…

Comment by Eric D. Dixon — April 9, 2009 @ 5:37 p.m.
Perhaps the discussion should move towards a geographic method. i.e. Only people who live in Missouri can contribute to congressional, state and local elections. Violation of this rule would result in a felony conviction with some punishment to be agreed on. Of course there would be some type of $ limit for corporations and other types of companies (in particular LLC corporations. We should probably tax the funds still on hand when a office holder retires. Lots of things could be done without impacting a individual voter in Missouri.

Comment by zapper6264 — April 12, 2009 @ 10:08 a.m.
Sorry, zapper, but that cure would be worse than the “disease.” First of all, I’m not at all convinced that too much money gets spent on political campaigns. Here’s a relevant observation from the Cato Institute:

Money should be viewed as a proxy for information in political campaigns. When the political class insists there’s too much money in politics, what they are really saying is that there is too much money they don’t control in politics. After all, Proctor & Gamble spends more on advertising in the course of a year than all the federal election campaigns combined. Who is to say how much is too much?

Second, campaign donations are absolutely a free speech issue, regardless of the physical location of the donor, and should be carefully protected along with our other First Amendment rights.

Comment by Eric D. Dixon — April 12, 2009 @ 8:56 p.m.
Well – I tend to disagree that campaign donations are absolutely a free speech issue. I do not read that “Money = Speech” anywhere in our Constitution. An exception or course is in our Court (unelected legislature) opinions. I would think the objective is “equal opportunity speech”. A person with more money gets more “equal opportunity speech”? Sorry – cannot go that far. It is not how much – it is where and who.

Comment by zapper6264 — April 13, 2009 @ 9:18 a.m.
No, money is not speech — but money buys a soapbox. If you’re prohibited from acquiring a soapbox, the right to free speech is meaningless.

Comment by Eric D. Dixon — April 13, 2009 @ 2:13 p.m.
Check out my follow-up post here:
http://www.showmedaily.org/2009/04/campaign-finance-again.html

Comment by Dave Roland — April 14, 2009 @ 11:44 a.m.
I’ve always thought that if I ever ran for office I would try to do it without accepting campaign donations, and that perhaps that would just be interesting enough to get me some free press, and just enough of a balk to the status quo to gain respect and interest from voters. I like the idea, and I think if one person / group would do it, it could create a free market incentive to be the lower-earning politician. Money doesn’t always buy a soapbox. Think of how many people just do something interesting and different, and it propels them to fame, like, say, octomom. Advertising is definitely effective, but you can get free advertising from the press and from social networks. Advertising is not the only soapbox, and over time freer mediums like facebook may become much more valuable for awareness of candidates and issues. Anyhow, I think your idea may be better realized on the candidate side than the voter side.

Comment by darla — November 10, 2009 @ 1:25 p.m.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Or you can use our new Facebook commenting system!

Categories

What if the reason the candidate can’t raise any money is because they are reasonably viewed to be a poor candidate who would make a terrible elected official? Then you just committed to vote for a bad candidate. Third party candidates may often be quality candidates who just struggle to raise money, but within the two main parties an inability to raise money can be reasonably correlated with not being a very good candidate in the first place (with plenty of exceptions).

Comment by David Stokes — April 9, 2009 @ 5:03 p.m.

I think the question here, Dave, is just how upset people are by the idea that moneyed interests hijack the democratic process. If someone is convinced (as they might reasonably be) that this is a major problem, they should absolutely be willing not only to make a stand like this but to encourage their favored candidates to court like-minded people by refusing to accept large donations. Keep in mind, as well, that the relatively small number of voters likely to commit to this course of action may be large enough to cause a major party candidate to lose an election, but will probably not be large enough to win an election for a third party candidate. If a group’s primary goal is to drive candidates away from the crazy-expensive campaigns that have become more and more common, necessitating reliance on big money donors, this strategy has some real potential.

Comment by Dave Roland — April 9, 2009 @ 5:28 p.m.

It’s a war strategy, not a battle strategy. That is, it may not make sense to make this the basis for a vote in a particular race when considered in isolation, but as races aggregate over time, in theory it could have a net overall “positive” effect. Not that I would participate, myself…

Comment by Eric D. Dixon — April 9, 2009 @ 5:37 p.m.

Perhaps the discussion should move towards a geographic method. i.e. Only people who live in Missouri can contribute to congressional, state and local elections. Violation of this rule would result in a felony conviction with some punishment to be agreed on. Of course there would be some type of $ limit for corporations and other types of companies (in particular LLC corporations. We should probably tax the funds still on hand when a office holder retires. Lots of things could be done without impacting a individual voter in Missouri.

Comment by zapper6264 — April 12, 2009 @ 10:08 a.m.

Sorry, zapper, but that cure would be worse than the “disease.” First of all, I’m not at all convinced that too much money gets spent on political campaigns. Here’s a relevant observation from the Cato Institute:

Money should be viewed as a proxy for information in political campaigns. When the political class insists there’s too much money in politics, what they are really saying is that there is too much money they don’t control in politics. After all, Proctor & Gamble spends more on advertising in the course of a year than all the federal election campaigns combined. Who is to say how much is too much?

Second, campaign donations are absolutely a free speech issue, regardless of the physical location of the donor, and should be carefully protected along with our other First Amendment rights.

Comment by Eric D. Dixon — April 12, 2009 @ 8:56 p.m.

Well – I tend to disagree that campaign donations are absolutely a free speech issue. I do not read that “Money = Speech” anywhere in our Constitution. An exception or course is in our Court (unelected legislature) opinions. I would think the objective is “equal opportunity speech”. A person with more money gets more “equal opportunity speech”? Sorry – cannot go that far. It is not how much – it is where and who.

Comment by zapper6264 — April 13, 2009 @ 9:18 a.m.

No, money is not speech — but money buys a soapbox. If you’re prohibited from acquiring a soapbox, the right to free speech is meaningless.

Comment by Eric D. Dixon — April 13, 2009 @ 2:13 p.m.

Check out my follow-up post here:
http://www.showmedaily.org/2009/04/campaign-finance-again.html

Comment by Dave Roland — April 14, 2009 @ 11:44 a.m.

I’ve always thought that if I ever ran for office I would try to do it without accepting campaign donations, and that perhaps that would just be interesting enough to get me some free press, and just enough of a balk to the status quo to gain respect and interest from voters. I like the idea, and I think if one person / group would do it, it could create a free market incentive to be the lower-earning politician. Money doesn’t always buy a soapbox. Think of how many people just do something interesting and different, and it propels them to fame, like, say, octomom. Advertising is definitely effective, but you can get free advertising from the press and from social networks. Advertising is not the only soapbox, and over time freer mediums like facebook may become much more valuable for awareness of candidates and issues. Anyhow, I think your idea may be better realized on the candidate side than the voter side.

Comment by darla — November 10, 2009 @ 1:25 p.m.

April 9, 2009