COUNTERPOINT: Campaign finance reform–don’t worry, money can’t do everything
It seems that the basic assumptions made by advocates of campaign finance reform are that the rich and powerful have too much influence on politics in this country, and that even ‘good’ politicians are corrupted by the enormous amounts of money that are spread around in government circles.
While it is undeniable that most politicians tend to have fairly healthy egos, and many tend to be fairly greedy (though probably no more greedy than any of us in the same situation), my personal experience is that most politicians make the choices they do because they believe they will result in a better world for them and their children, not because of how much money someone is offering them.
Believe it or not, most conservatives do not oppose anti-tobacco regulations because they have been ‘bought’ by the tobacco companies, but rather because their personal beliefs are that the economy is better off when government doesn’t interfere with legal businesses.
Conservatives also support development of natural resources, not because they have been ‘bought’ by big mining and oil companies, but rather because they believe that it can be done without destroying the environment.
They oppose abortion, not because they hate women, but because they honestly believe that it is a child in the mother’s womb and not just ‘fetal material.’
In the same vein, though it pains me somewhat to say it, most liberals support the causes they do, such as gun control, abortion, larger welfare benefits, etc., because they believe that doing so will result in a better world, not because they have been ‘bought’ by teachers’ unions, environmental groups, and abortion groups. There are exceptions, of course, but most politicians determined their beliefs long before they were elected to office.
A few years ago, I was an employee of former Rep. James Hansen, then the congressman for this area. I handled a lot of different issues for our office, but the largest was running the Congressional Task Force on Tobacco and Health, the primary anti-tobacco organization in Congress. During that time, groups such as American Cancer Society, Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, and The American Heart Association, asked all congressmen to sign a pledge that they would not accept campaign contributions from tobacco companies. Many agreed to sign such a pledge, but Hansen would not.
He said, in essence, that any tobacco company that was stupid enough to give him money deserved to lose it, because they knew that there was no way he would support them in their efforts.
The plain truth is that most of the money which goes to politicians does so because ‘special interests’ know which politicians already agree with their points, and they want those politicians to have the means to defend themselves against their opponents. They do not do so with the intent of ‘buying’ some politician’s vote.
That leads me to my second point about campaign finance reform. Supporters always talk about the need to get ‘special interests’ out of politics and let normal people like you and me run the process as it should be. Well, do you want to know a little secret? We are all special interests. While working in Washington, D.C., most of my time was spent meeting with groups from local schools, civic groups, and groups of local employers.
In addition, most of the mail entering our office was from individuals from the First District of Utah requesting some form of assistance from the congressman. Special interest groups are not just big business, oil companies, etc. Rather, they are teacher groups, citizens concerned about pornography, a senior citizen needing help with the Social Security Administration, or a veteran needing assistance obtaining veterans’ benefits. When someone talks about removing the influence of ‘special interests’ from government, they are really saying that only ‘approved’ voices will be heard by our representatives.
From the outset of our nation, political speech has been considered the bedrock of our freedoms. That includes giving money in support of those who speak with a political voice that mirrors yours. If any type of speech is going to be protected against all attacks, it must be that right to political speech. We have a current example of supposed democracy without free political speech — it’s called Iraq.
Jeremy Kidd is a graduate student in economics. Comments can be sent to jeremykidd@cc.usu.edu.