Here’s a letter that I sent this morning to the Chicago Tribune:
Seeking to rid politics of the influence of special interests, Jeffrey Smith says that “Our campaigns need 100 percent public financing” (Letters, Jan. 11).
Questions for Mr. Smith: Who would determine which candidates get funding and which do not? Does Mr. Smith not worry that the committee or process chosen for allocating campaign funds will itself be heavily influenced by the very special-interests that now dominate government – and, thus, will only strengthen these interests’ strangling grip on the public fisc? Is Mr. Smith blind to the likelihood that giving to government complete control over who runs for office and who doesn’t will vastly increase the power of that most dangerous of special-interest groups: incumbent politicians?
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Share
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 60 comments }
← Previous Comments
Money is a corrupting influence in politics.
I disagree. The corrupting influence is the massive amount of power we have bestowed on politicians. People like Yasafi clamor for more-and-more regulation, giving the politicians more-and-more opportunities to sell influence. The money is only buying what politicians have to sell. Remove the power, and you remove the true corrupting influence.
Any effort to remove it should be received with an open mind.
IMO, the only effort that will succeed is to take away their power. Everything else is window dressing. If they have power, they will get money, and all your rules will do is make it harder for us to figure out who's giving what to whom.
BTW: I am unconcerned with how much money George Soros gives to the Democratic Party socialists. I do want to know how much he gives to the party, and to each candidate. In other words, full disclosure, so that I know who to vote against.
1 person liked this: I hit the wrong key.
You guys are just proving my point. Apparently there is no solution so we should just sit here and take it.
There are many very good solutions the problem is getting from here to there past the powers that be. But at least I'm not complacent taking up the butt like you guys seem to be.
Actually you've been told multiple times that the solution is strip the powers from those who are selling the favors but you seem to be unable to register that. Giving the sellers more power and additionally granting them the power to decide who gets to be a seller is so self-evidently stupid and counterproductive I can only assume you're not being serious.
I agree that removing the power being sold would solve the problem. How would you recommend divesting elected officials of power? In the absence of a good solution to removing the power, preventing the sale of it is a next best ideologically. And I am concerned with how much money George Soros or anyone else gives. If he wants to give $2500 to every Democrate candidate running for office that's fine.
Bye bye theft of taxpayer funds for liberals:
http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/case/68
Have fun, dumbass. GFY.
Alex,
It won't be easy getting the power back, now that they have it. One way would be to stop providing liquidity to their power by refusing them money. I don't mean campaign money – I mean revenue. Shut off the tax spigot. Vidyohs has pointed out that the fact that Congress makes their own rules needs to be changed. Both are mighty tough to accomplish, but I don't see any meaningful reform coming until those things happen.
My problem with campaign-finance regulations, is that they are written by the very people we want to reign in with campaign finance regulations. Do you really trust the fox to design a fox-proof henhouse? Their regulations only make it harder to discover who is giving what, and how much they give.
I want sunshine. Perhaps a regulation stipulating that failure to disclose is punishable by fine <and> imprisonment for both the donor and the recipient would do the trick.
I truly don't care that Soros gives $10,000,000 to Obama, and I suspect that after all of the back alleys and loopholes have been gone through, that he gave at least that much. I want it to be common knowledge. If he's Soros' sock puppet, I want it out there in the open for everyone to see.
nmg,
I was about to hit the Like button until I read, “I can only assume you're not being serious.”
We know better!
Bye bye theft of taxpayer funds for election “liberals:”
http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/case/68
Have fun, dumbass. GFY.
Alex,
It won't be easy getting the power back, now that they have it. One way would be to stop providing liquidity to their power by refusing them money. I don't mean campaign money – I mean revenue. Shut off the tax spigot. Vidyohs has pointed out that the fact that Congress makes their own rules needs to be changed. Both are mighty tough to accomplish, but I don't see any meaningful reform coming until those things happen.
My problem with campaign-finance regulations, is that they are written by the very people we want to reign in with campaign finance regulations. Do you really trust the fox to design a fox-proof henhouse? Their regulations only make it harder to discover who is giving (and how much is given), and who is receiving.
I want sunshine. Perhaps a regulation stipulating that failure to disclose is punishable by fine and imprisonment for both the donor and the recipient would do the trick.
I truly don't care that Soros gives $10,000,000 to Obama, and I suspect that after all of the back alleys and loopholes have been gone through, that he gave at least that much. I want it to be common knowledge. If he's Soros' sock puppet, I want it out there in the open for everyone to see.
nmg,
I was about to hit the Like button until I read, “I can only assume you're not being serious.”
We know better!
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.