Campaign Finance

One of my pet issues is how political campaigns are financed. I am a big critic of our present system, which gives a tremendous advantage to candidates with celebrity & money, and creates the appearance of corruption in government. I have always believed that the Buckley vs. Valeo decision which struck down limits on campaign spending effectively creates a wealth test for office and violates the equal protection and one-man-one-vote standards (I am not alone in thinking this.)

Which is why I am somewhat disturbed by the Decembrist's suggestion (in concurrence with Calabresi) that campaign contributions are a useful method for registering intensity of political desire. The idea is that democracy requires means for impassioned minorities to make their opinions felt.

This argument has very little merit, for two reasons. First, the only "impassioned minorities" who have influence under the present system are wealthy ones. If every group had an equal capacity to donate funds to candidates, things might be different. But the vast majority of campaign funds are from corporations and millionaires. Second, I can hear the world's tiniest violin playing in the background for the wealthy and powerful as they argue that their donations are needed to have their interests represented in Washington. Because they NEVER get their way on the Hill, do they? Ridiculous.

My belief is that any candidate who receives a major party nomination should receive both direct subsidies and vouchers for campaign advertising. No one should be able to spend more than a small sum of money on political campaigns, even their own. And millionaires and interest groups that want to run "issue ads" can do so up until 60 days before the campaign and should be prohibited from mentioning a candidate's name.

And the First Amendment? Let's just say that your right to swing your first stops at my face. No rights are absolute, a fact that the simpletons on the right wing have some trouble grasping.