History vs. Campaign-Finance Reform

[Valin]

NRO: Unintended consequences often bedevil reformers.

Michael Barone

5/30/13

 

A thoughtful reformer targets the traditional rules of an aging institution that has retarded progress in the past. Time to modernize those rules, the reformer says, and prevent obstruction in the future.

The trouble is that such reform efforts often prove counterproductive. New rules strengthen rather than weaken the aging institution. Unintended consequences abound.

 

(Snip)

 

There has been a similar phenomenon in the efforts over the years to limit the influence of money in electoral politics. Going back more than 100 years, Congress and state legislatures have tried to build dams to stop vast rivers of money flowing downstream into campaigns. The result is that slowly moving rivulets are steered into other channels, then rush in vast torrents down slopes into supposedly forbidden landscape.

 

To switch from watery metaphor to legal analysis, there is an inevitable tension between campaign-finance limitations and the First Amendment. Supreme Court justices may try to limit its protections to student armbands, nude dancing, and flag burning, but its real purpose is to protect political speech which costs money.

 

Much of the impetus for campaign-finance limitations came from those who fear that the rich will give one party an insuperable advantage in election after election. Half a century ago, Republicans seemed to have such an advantage. But those days are gone. What has happened instead is that, as political spending has zoomed past intended limits, citizens acting on calculation or conviction have been donating about equal amounts to both parties.

 

In response to new restrictions, they do so increasingly without disclosure. So campaign-finance reform has resulted in more money and less accountability.

 

(Snip)