Thursday, September 06, 2007
A free system of campaign finance
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Mike Schrimpf
Schrimpf, of Arlington, is deputy communications director for the Center of Competitive Politics.
In his Aug. 24 commentary, "Let's get the money out of politics," Cabell Brand decries the lack of federal dollars available for infrastructure projects on our system of privately financed elections and advocated implementing a system of government-financed campaigns modeled after the public-financing scheme in Maine as the solution to all our ills.
It certainly is odd that on one hand Brand frets over a lack of money for infrastructure while on the other he wants to spend more, not on infrastructure, but on subsidizing politicians. But, just in case this counterintuitive reasoning was not already apparent, at the end of his piece Brand cites Maine as the model for his system of government-financed elections.
I wonder if Brand is aware that the Maine Clean Election Fund is having trouble staying solvent after the state legislature borrowed more than $5 million from it in recent years. Evidently, the lawmakers in Maine thought the money could be better spent on more pressing needs.
Brand is also mistaken in his screed, typical of the so-called reform community, against lobbyists and campaign contributions. Unhappy with legislative outcomes, advocates of campaign finance regulation covertly go about incrementally changing campaign rules in order to rig the game and suppress speech unfavorable to the "reformers" other policy priorities.
Fortunately, political science refutes the claims of the reform community that money corrupts the political process. Research by professors Stephen Bronars and John Lott finds that campaign contributions are driven by ideology and legislators vote according to their own beliefs, their party loyalty or the views of their constituents.
Additionally, lobbyists do not just represent the rich as Brand asserts. Indeed, a quick search of federal lobbyists reveals that there are lobbyists for the environment, retired people, labor organizations and other progressive causes.
It seems, then, that Brand does not so much want to reduce the rule of lobbyists as he wants to silence those lobbyists with whom he disagrees. Fortunately, though, this is America and the First Amendment guarantees all citizens the right to peaceably assemble and petition their government for a redress of grievances.
It should also be noted that government-financed elections do not result in more competitive elections and can actually decrease citizen confidence in government.
A government study found that access to public funding has little impact on incumbent reelection rates or the number of competitive elections as defined by victory margins. Moreover, political scientists Jeffrey Milyo and David Primo found that government financing has "a statistically negative effect on public views about whether 'people have a say' in their government or whether 'officials care.'"
So it should be apparent that the way for Brand to achieve his policy objectives is to convince his fellow citizens that they are worthwhile goals. This is best done through a campaign finance system that allows rigorous debate free of artificial government limits that suppress speech.
Virginia residents are fortunate; they can look at their own state as an example of what happens in a free political system. Virginia has no contribution limits of any kind and even allows corporations to contribute to political campaigns. Not surprisingly, Virginia was also recently rated as one of the best-governed states in the nation by Governing Magazine.
A government-financing system for elections will only suppress speech and waste government resources. Americans deserve a free and robust political system in which they can speak openly on important issues.
