The rallying cry on both the Left and the Right these days is for Campaign Finance Reform. Regardless of political affiliation, from Bill Bradley to John McCain, they are united in their calls for limitations on the amount of “special interest” money currently “influencing” and “corrupting” the sanctity of the American electoral process. Political action committees (PAC’s), “soft” and “hard” money donations—these fundraising instruments are the equivalent of Hate Speech from activists, pundits, and politicians hoping to convince an increasingly cynical audience of their sincerity. They all want to clean up the system, but no one wants to identify what makes the system so corruptible.
The dollars floating around political activities makes it crystal-clear that our “representatives” belong to someone other than those who voted for them—they belong to those that paid for them. Candidates and political parties dependent upon donations from “special interest groups” are being influenced by their contributors to vote auspiciously on legislation affecting those interests. This often comes in the form of corporate welfare—subsidies and grants, or laws that restrain or even forbid competition. From tariffs to Internet taxation, most anyone who can be threatened or strengthened by government interference tries to steer things their way. Corporations, most often cast as the villain in the campaign finance debate, did not create this mess. They are guilty only of making sure it works for them. Most voters agree the solution is Campaign Finance Reform. Primarily, we are told, more constraints on “soft money” (money given directly to political parties) and “hard money” (contributions to a specific candidate) are needed. Scarier suggestions have included forcing broadcasters to furnish airtime to candidates and banning “special interests” from providing political information, such as the voting records of members of congress. But these are not realistic solutions! Soft and hard money have been regulated for over twenty years, and dictating programming schedules and obstructing use of the printing press to “return government to the people” simply is not acceptable in a free society.
That Americans have forgotten the proper role of the state is precisely what “reformers” are counting on. Dragging out the same tired old clichés waxed so eloquently four, eight, or twelve years ago, politicians wishing to connect with their constituencies are proposing more laws to manage a problem made possible only by government’s pervasiveness! When people feel control over their lives slipping away in the shadow of a corporate leviathan they instinctively seek to limit the amount of control that can be had over legislators—instead of seeking to limit the amount of sway the legislature has over them. To restore trust between the individual voter and his representatives requires an understanding of how their contractual relationship has been breached. The only morally tenable purpose for government is the protection of its citizens against acts of force and fraud. The Founding Fathers subordinated government to the will of the individual by constructing it with clearly defined and limited functions. Elections were never meant to simply provide new masters. Elected officials were expected to carry out delegated tasks only. They were expected to govern, not rule. Today, politicians manipulate activities that were never supposed to feel their touch, yet lay blame for out-of-control government on those who pay for their campaigns!
In the last one hundred years the economy in particular has been the battleground for political expansion. From the forced provision of employee benefits (including medical leave), OSHA regulations, and the minimum wage to affirmative action and anti-trust laws, companies operating on the market especially feel the heavy-hand of the state in their affairs. It would be intellectually dishonest to contemplate them not exploiting the system, and whether or not their actions are “right” or “wrong” is subsumed by their overwhelming desire to survive. Corporations have mastered the art of pull, of directing legislation to create a favorable environment for their specific industry or company at the expense of everyone else. It is this that the advocates of Campaign Finance Reform hope to stifle, but they are missing the forest for all the green.
We don’t need to “get money out of politics”—we need to return government to its proper place. We need to remove it from our businesses and bank accounts. Government should be protecting private property, not micro-managing it. If no precedent had been established allowing for the government to interject itself between two or more persons engaged in a voluntary exchange of goods and services, no incentive would exist for anyone to interject himself between the government and the people. Corporate attempts to control the legislative agenda are only a symptom of a political process hostile to genuinely free competition.
In short, instead of trying to limit the amount of money that can be contributed to political campaigns, we should be drastically decreasing the size and scope of the government and its accompanying ability to forcefully affect people’s lives. When politicians no longer hold the reigns of power over everyday life it will no longer be profitable to control the reigns of politicians.
01/09/00
842 words