BuckeyeBlog

Although it goes by the name of “campaign finance reform,” efforts to regulate campaign contributions and spending are little more than attempts by politicians to abridge the freedom of people to engage in politics. Often liberals have supported these schemes, but in this election Senator Barack Obama’s fundraising activities should shatter this liberal support of these efforts. At least that’s what Buckeye Institute Board member Bradley Smith says in an excellent piece in yesterday’s Washington Post:

Obama’s epic fundraising should put to rest all the shibboleths about campaign finance reform — that it is needed to prevent corruption, that it equalizes the playing field, or that tax subsidies are needed to prevent corruption.  …

When one side is being outspent, its partisans naturally want to limit the fundraising of the other side. But if we really are concerned about “fairness,” the best approach is probably to remove restrictions on fundraising altogether, rather than limit the speech of those who are raising money successfully. …

We should consider it a healthy thing when Americans support their political beliefs with their dollars. What we see in this election is that contributions don’t really cause “corruption” and that we don’t really want the government deciding who has spoken too much and who has not spoken enough. If Obama’s fundraising shows us the emptiness of the arguments for campaign finance “reform,” he will have done us a great service, in spite of himself.

In a time when most pundits merely parrot banal talking points in support of their political party or make wild accusations in order to get media attention, George Will stands increasingly alone. He is erudite, well-read, and isn’t afraid to disagree with his party when it stops living up to its ideals. Case in point: his column today, where he exposes the anti-market actions of both John McCain and George W. Bush. God bless you, Mr. Will:

In any case, McCain’s smear — that [SEC Chairman Chris] Cox “betrayed the public’s trust” — is a harbinger of a McCain presidency. For McCain, politics is always operatic, pitting people who agree with him against those who are “corrupt” or “betray the public’s trust,” two categories that seem to be exhaustive — there are no other people. McCain’s Manichaean worldview drove him to his signature legislative achievement, the McCain-Feingold law’s restrictions on campaigning. Today, his campaign is creatively finding interstices in laws intended to restrict campaign giving and spending….

The political left always aims to expand the permeation of economic life by politics. Today, the efficient means to that end is government control of capital. So, is not McCain’s party now conducting the most leftist administration in American history? The New Deal never acted so precipitously on such a scale. Treasury Secretary Paulson, asked about conservative complaints that his rescue program amounts to socialism, said, essentially: This is not socialism, this is necessary. That non sequitur might be politically necessary, but remember that government control of capital is government control of capitalism. Does McCain have qualms about this, or only quarrels?