Getting Money out of Politics

Individuals across the political spectrum decry the influence of money on political elections. Many want to severely limit campaign contributions, and others would like political campaigns to be financed by tax dollars. But neither of these address the fundamental issue, and indeed, they illustrate the fundamental problem.

The reason that so much money is donated to political campaigns is that so much is at stake. Politicians and bureaucrats wield tremendous power over many businesses and industries. For many businesses, success (and sometimes its very existence) depends on government policies. For example, Obama threatened to destroy the coal industry and coal-fired power plants through regulations. Understandably, the companies who were threatened fought back, seeking to elect politicians who would support them. On the other side were the companies who sought subsidies, such as the renewable energy companies. They contributed to political campaigns, not in self-defense, but in order to receive political favors.

Those who donate to political campaigns in an effort to protect their freedom to create material values are very different from those who donate to receive political favors. The former are trying to stop the use of force against them, while the latter seek to use force against competitors, taxpayers, or both. Yet, this distinction is seldom made. Instead, critics decry the money donated to political campaigns, treating all donations as equal.

In a capitalist society, influencing politicians through campaign donations would be pointless. Politicians would not have the power to regulate an industry out of existence, nor would they have the power to grant an industry special favors. Politicians, like private citizens, would be prohibited from initiating force. If we want to get money out of politics, then we must first get politicians out of our wallets.

Similar Posts

  • Freedom for the Fishermen

    This was originally posted on Live Oaks on October 2, 2009. Comments have not been migrated. Earlier this week Chronicle columnist Lisa Falkenberg provided us with a look into the state’s food stamp program. Texas isn’t coming close to meeting federal requirements to process food stamp applications within a month. Last month, about 38,000 new…

  • The “Living” Constitution

    This was originally posted on Live Oaks on March 22, 2010. Comments have not been migrated. A few weeks ago a commenter argued that the Constitution is a “living” document. According to Wikipedia: The Living Constitution is a concept in American constitutional interpretation which claims that the Constitution has a dynamic meaning. The idea is…

  • The “Radical Center”

    This was originally posted on Live Oaks on March 25, 2010. Comments have not been migrated. Thomas Friedman bemoans the political divisiveness that arose during the debate over health care “reform”. He fears that Democrats will lose seats in November, resulting in more gridlock in Washington. His solution: That is why I want my own…

  • |

    Rules of Evidence

    In a court trial, specific rules govern what evidence is admissible. According to Wikipedia The law of evidence, also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. The purpose of these principles is to assure a fair and impartial trial. However,…