posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 01:24 AM
Another issue on which I'm skeptical. I've long been flirting with rather the opposite view, that for this system to properly work we should
deregulate campaign finance altogether, at least in terms of dollar limits. I do support transparency in campaign finance.
Why can't a billionaire jump in behind me and fund TheBadCabbie for president campaign? Campaign finance laws. Why can't that guy who just won the
lottery donate a million dollars to my presidential campaign? Campaign finance laws. A billionaire, or even a multi-millionaire, could absorb some of
the cost of an expensive campaign, I cannot. At a one thousand dollar per person or company limit, I'd have to cast a very wide net to finance an
adequate campaign, an unlikely proposition.
It doesn't really solve the problem in my opinion. You can limit contributions to fifty dollars per person, it still doesn't change the fact that
vast sums of money are spent on these elections. An individual holding greater wealth will still have a tremendous advantage. A campaign that would be
an insurmountable expense to an individual of median income might be only a modest expense to a wealthy enough individual. Campaign finance laws
don't really change this, at all.
What then, do we ban a person from spending their own money on their own campaign? That seems wrong to me. If I'm willing to give my time to the
torturous occupation of government, why shouldn't I be able to also devote my personal resources to said campaign? To ban such would seem to me to be
an infringement of a fundamental right. If I want to throw all my chips in to run for office, that should be my right, it should be anyone's
Super-pacs and other loopholes sort of make individual contribution caps hurt the little person in my opinion. The big players can still get the big
money, but an average gal will be hurt by individual donation capping because she probably won't have access to the same machinations. Even if you
close all the loopholes, it just creates another one. Companies will pump their CEO's full of money and then send em off to run for office.
Perhaps a limit on the amount of money that can be spent on a campaign? I dunno. Even that seems problematic. I'm not sure what the right answer here
is, I just don't think the common proposed reforms are the right solutions either.
I thought this point of view deserved its own thread so that it can be properly discussed. What do you think?