Posted by
The Hunter on Wednesday, February 06, 2008 2:51:04 PM
Campaign finance reform has done just the opposite. It has created a system which allows for corruption, favors the rich candidate, and reduces competition in election.
Specifically, donation limits restrict the freedom of the people. As the earners of their own money, people have every right to give it away if they wish to do so. The old corruption justification no longer holds water. From the beginning, there have been flaws in its argumentation. Why is the donation limit at $2300? What is so inherently corrupt about $2350 or $23000? Or even $23 million? Politicians have no business attempting to define corruption for the people. The people should be the only deciding power in an election. And since regulation have been instituted in the name of "cleaning up Washington", results have found that politicians are the ones who benefit from them. When an incumbent, or politician running for reelection, is challenged, the policies instituted by politicians favor the incumbent. Before, challengers were certainly disadvantaged. Incumbents were favored by the media, already have support, don't have to spend money just to get their name out, and have pregathered funds. But each of these advantages are caused by the people. The people support, the people donate, the people in the media decide to follow incumbents.
The government has taken the power that used to lie only with the people, and given it to the government. While the people used to decide for themselves if a politician was accepting bribes or being corrupted by funds, the government has imposed artificial standards, based on no evidence, and stolen the power and freedom of the people to follow their own standards.
To present a better system, all donation and spending limits and regulations should be overturned. People should be free to donate their money, and spend their money how they please.
For those worried about corruption, and more directly, those that favor government protection over individual freedom, rapid disclosure should also be instituted. By telling people who's been giving to a candidate, you allow the people to make better informed decisions, and most importantly, allows the people to make their own judgements regarding corruption.
Increased freedom and knowledge for the people will result in fairer and more competitive elections. And the greatest advantage is greater individual freedom.