The supporters of campaign-finance regulation, and now a
bare majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, are trying to
square the circle. They want a vast distributive state
— in which politicians dispense favors at the
expense of others — without the appearance of
corruption. An inherently corrupt system with no
appearance of corruption is about as likely as, well, a
square circle.
The Court has upheld by a 5–4 vote the McCain-Feingold
law, which among other things prohibits political parties
from raising unregulated “soft money” and
restricts “issue” advertising on television 60
days before a general election and 30 days before a
primary.
This is no minor matter. Five members of the Supreme
Court (including the “liberals”) are willing
to accept limits on free speech because in their view it
will help avoid the appearance of corrupt access to
government favor-peddlers. Since it won’t actually
do that — as even the majority admitted — that
flimsy excuse to violate natural and First Amendment
rights has no legs to stand on.
One wonders whether the advocates of such controls are
dealing in good faith. They complain that previous
restrictions have not worked; eventually everyone found a
way to evade them. So now they try again. Do they
seriously think the new rules won’t be gotten
around? (No, they don’t.) What then? More
restrictions on Americans’ freedom?
This is where it is headed. The logic is relentless: Once
the government’s authority to transfer wealth from
one person to another is declared nonnegotiable, liberty
becomes highly negotiable.
Let’s state plainly what the champions of
campaign-finance laws refuse to acknowledge. Government today is
mostly a wealth-transfer machine. This takes roughly two
forms: taxation and regulation. Through taxation
politicians loot productive people and give the proceeds
to favored constituencies, rich and poor. For example,
when government subsidizes a business or a person, it
first has to take the money from someone else without
consent. Through regulation government can accomplish
much the same goal. A regulation imposing quotas on
imported clothing will raise the price of clothing in the
American market and benefit domestic producers who
otherwise would have lost out to foreigner competitors.
The regulation is equivalent to a cash subsidy procured
by taxation.
Since government has the muscle to bestow wealth in these
ways, it is no surprise that people lobby to become
beneficiaries. The prospective rewards are so great that
those aiming for them are willing to spend considerable
sums in the effort. What better way to get a piece of the
action than to contribute money to elect or reelect
friendly candidates?
Money isn’t spent only to obtain the unearned.
Sometimes those threatened with taxation or regulation do
it to protect themselves from state encroachment. They
too have an interest in finding sympathetic candidates.
When government has life-and-death power over business
and other areas of life, we should expect to see such
defensive activities.
The second group of people is more honorable than the
first, although campaign-finance reformers regard both as
equally corrupt.
But notice that the surest way to end that corruption is
to prohibit government from engaging in favor-peddling in
the first place. If government has nothing to sell, no
one will try to buy.
Unfortunately, it’s a rare politician who would deny
himself the power to hand out booty. That’s how one
wins votes and makes a career of politics.
The Court didn’t take its own reasoning seriously
enough. If it really wanted to remove the appearance of
corrupt access to government, it would have voided the
entire distributive state. There’s a simple way to
keep money away from politics: keep politics away from
money.
