Proposals for campaign finance reform never target the real problem: the unconstitutional concentration of money and power in Washington DC.
Sheldon Richman of the Future of Freedom Foundation considers the proposal for tax-funded political campaigns "an abominable idea." Why should voters be forced to subsidize the campaigns of candidates they wouldn't even vote for? "Thomas Jefferson said that to force people to finance ideas with which they disagree is tyrannical," Richman recalls. "But that's exactly what funding campaigns through taxation would do."
Writing in a recent issue of the conservative weekly newspaper Human Events, Richman points out that more than half of the nation's eligible voters "chose not to vote in the 1996 presidential election. Should they have been forced to give money to the candidates?" he asks. "It would be more than absurd to compel participation in a political system that is theoretically based on freedom."
Richman insists that putting a cap on campaign contributions is also a bad idea. "Any such limitation would violate the right of free association and speech," he contends. "Limits also help keep incumbents in power. Challengers with low name recognition may need large contributions from a few donors to take on an incumbent," Richman explains. "The $1,000 cap ensures that serious challenges will be seldom seen."
Richman concludes that self-styled reformers are "worrying about symptoms while neglecting causes. If the method of funding campaigns is changed while the causes of the 'money problem' are not," he argues, "the corruption that worries people will rear its head somewhere else, perhaps in a less visible place." What are the causes of the money problem? Presidents and Congressmen have too much tax revenue to hand out, and too much power to wield. They sell to the highest bidders the promise of government grants and concessions. "Big donors are trying to buy something," Richman confirms. "But donors can buy something only if someone else has something to sell."
Big donors "want to ensure that, when government takes from Peter and gives to Paul, they will be the Pauls who get the loot," says Richman. "The results of influence can be obvious, such as a cash subsidy for research and development or a law or tax restricting a competitor. The results can also be subtle, such as a seat on the airplane that carries the secretary of commerce to a foreign capital to promote American business. One way or another, donors are buying access to the people's wealth."
Congressmen and Presidents would have nothing to sell if they were no longer able to "tax the unorganized majority and distribute the money to well-organized interests." Nor would contributors be willing to shell out such enormous sums to obtain influence over people who no longer "write laws and run programs that bring about those transfers." No one would contribute "big bucks to politicians and parties if they had no transfer favors to sell," Richman asserts. "So, the way to 'get money out of politics' is to get politics out of the business of giving away other people's money."
