Money, Power, and Elections: How Campaign Finance Reform Subverts American Democracy by Rodney A. Smith

Author:Rodney A. Smith [Smith, Rodney A.]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Democracy, Campaigns & Elections, Political Ideologies, Political Science, Political Process, Politics, General
ISBN: 9780807156315
Google: r4kXAwAAQBAJ
Goodreads: 19348585
Publisher: LSU Press
Published: 2006-05-01T00:00:00+00:00

11 THE CRUX OF THE PROBLEM

The use of money is all the advantage there is in having money.

Benjamin Franklin

To address any problem there may be with money in politics, one must consider its utilitarian value as well as the fallible nature of humankind. Both of these factors are often used by reformers to support their arguments for prohibiting or restricting the flow of money in politics. Of course these same factors can also be used to sustain arguments against democracy itself.

Assuming a person were willing to contribute 1 percent of his or her liquid net worth to politics, a person with a liquid net worth of $1,000 would give $10, whereas a person with a liquid net worth of $100 million would give $1 million. The only knowable difference between the $10 given by a person in with a liquid net worth of $1,000 and the $1 million given by a person with a liquid net worth of $100 million is that the donors’ respective liquid net worth is different. As a percentage of liquid net worth, the financial sacrifice for both is exactly the same. Thus the $10 given by a person with a liquid net worth of $1,000 is no more pure than the $1 million given by a person with a liquid net worth of $100 million is corrupting. It is an identical level of sacrifice. Neither person necessarily has a greater level of commitment or a greater desire for reward.

But the fact remains that the $1 million given by the person with a liquid net worth of $100 million has an infinitely greater utilitarian value to the recipient than does the $10 given by the person with a liquid net worth of $1,000. This is the harsh, undeniable reality of money in politics.

Yet the utility of money and human corruptibility are facts of life. The question is how to deal with these two inescapable truths. The Founding Fathers chose separation of powers, citizen sovereignty, and the Bill of Rights. Proponents of campaign finance reform choose to view the solution differently. Their relentless push for campaign financing limits is essentially based on a utopian dream that some new system can be concocted making money meaningless in politics. That system does not exist and never will.

In a way, reformers are like curious children who’ve been given a powerful microscope. They put all the circumstantial evidence under their reform microscope and study it intensely. And like children, they become mesmerized by the disturbing defects and in so doing fail to grasp the underlying principles.

In his book Life after Reform, Michael J. Malbin states that reformers “recognize the First Amendment implications of regulation but place greater emphasis on the principle of equality and believe that a central purpose of campaign finance laws is to reduce the influence of large donors and thereby enhance the equity of the political finance system.”1 While this theory sounds enticing, it lacks convincing empirical support. The truth is that the overemphasis on equality often creates unintended inequalities.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.