Campaign Finance

E J Dionne has a column in the Washington Post today decrying in apocalyptic tones the recent Supreme Court decision that no limitations can be placed on political speech by corporations. (Repairing Citizens United become a test for three GOP senators) His point is that now corporations can spend as much as they want to influence the outcome of an election in the way they want, and corporations have an almost unlimited amount of money to spend--certainly more than any other organization. He argues that if this is going to be the case, then everyone should be able to agree that such contributions should be disclosed.

Another article in the New York Times (Interest Group Spending Drives G.O.P. Lead in Ads, by Michael Luo) seems to confirm Dionne's worst fears. Not only are the Republicans, through outside interest groups, outspending the Democrats this year, but as it is now it is difficult to tell exactly who is funding these groups.

Two observations can be made about these articles. First, the Republicans and their supporters in business have always had more money than the Democrats, and attempts to restrict or publicize business spending have resulted only in the creation of more and more devious ways to get around such restrictions. Campaign spending is like taxes: no matter what the restrictions and rules on taxes or contributions, the rich  have always been able to hire lawyers to find ways around them. This is a fact of life and should be accepted. The net result of all of the restrictions since 1907 have been only to complicate and fragment the parties the candidates supposedly represent.

The second observation is that business is not a monolithic, single minded entity. It is not automatic that a given business will support the Republican candidate. Both parties should be able to benefit from the absence of restrictions. The Democrats may not benefit as much, but on the other hand the Democrats largely have labor on their side. The more important point is that the competition for financial support is as much a part of the political process as is the competition for votes in an election, and should not be restricted.

For me the attempt to "reform" politics by restricting contributions to parties or candidates has been a failure, and should be abandoned. I would suggest that instead of trying to restrict who contributes to campaigns, it would be more effective to restrict who the contributors could contribute to. A more effective measure, one that has been in place in England for over a century, is to allow contributions only to parties. No one would be able to contribute anything to an individual candidate: such contributions would and should be considered bribery. Likewise, the candidate could accept or solicit contributions from no one except the party he represents. This would leave the candidate free to focus on the issues in his campaign, without pressure to please interested individuals or organizations outside of his party.

This, it seems to me, would be a more effective solution, and would make politics more honest.