So, you want to get money out of politics? Why not just go with a simpler solution, like contribution limits?

So, you want to get money out of politics? Why not just go with a simpler solution, like contribution limits?

A:

There are few problems with contribution limits:

 

First: Contribution limits have amounted largely to a game of “let’s see who can find the biggest loophole!” – a game being enjoyed by lawyers everywhere. If there’s a place for money in politics, then the people with the money will find a way to get it there. That’s just a historical fact.

 

Second: Who is writing the rules? All the legal proposals currently in place to regulate campaign contributions give that power to the legislators who are currently in office. Think about this for a minute: does it really sound like a good idea to give the people in power control over the purses of those who would challenge them? Incumbents would write the rules to benefit themselves, making it more difficult for new candidates to challenge them.

 

You can also think of it this way: because the Supreme Court has decided that political spending amounts to political speech, contribution limit laws actually give those in power the ability to regulate the political speech of everyone else. We believe in the importance of free speech too much to start down this slippery slope.

 

Lastly: Contribution limits make it harder for third parties to give money to candidates, but they don’t do anything about independent expenditures. In fact, they’ve only driven money outwards towards independent groups who spend it on advertising that the candidates aren’t allowed to control. There is no accountability with these independent expenditures, and this is where we get much of the deceitful, sensationalist advertising that goes on during a campaign.

Be the first to comment

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.