Every election cycle, complaints mount about how campaigns are financed, and the moral and ethical questions that accompany the need for raising money. Proposals are generally discussed regarding limiting expenditures, limiting contributions, or public financing. And generally the proposals are forgotten after the election, in a fashion reminiscent of the handyman who puts off fixing the leak in the roof while it's raining -- "Can't work in the rain" -- and puts off fixing it after the rain has ended -- "It's not leaking now."
The Supreme Court has said that limiting independent expenditures is a violation of freedom of speech. And while I think the union expenditures in the recent election were disgraceful, my opinion is based on the manner in which union leaders coerced contributions and spent them in a non-representative manner, without regard for the interests and opinions of the union members . Other than that, I think unions had every right to take part, and I would fear the prospect of a government body ruling on what political statements would be acceptable.
The problem is slightly different regarding other proposals to limit the amount of money that could be spent in a campaign. Incumbents generally have tremendous advantages: they can make official appearances or take official actions with a greater likelihood of media attention than appearances or actions by a challenger. Incumbents can sometimes even make these appearances or actions at public expense. They can certainly dispense favors at public expense. They can provide the services that government is mandated to provide, and they can do so in a manner that makes it seem a personal favor to the constituent. There aren't many ways a challenger can overcome these tactics, but advertising is an important way. And although incumbents usually have more money to spend on campaigns, a limit to campaign expenditures would guarantee an incumbent's advantage, because of course you can't limit the "official appearance" part of the media exposure.
Some minor benefit could be obtained by what is, in a sense, a limit to contributions: limit or prohibit fund-raising in an uncontested election, and limit or prohibit "war chests", campaign funds that build from year to year and intimidate possible opponents. But for the most part, full disclosure of sources of funds is the most important weapon against inappropriate fundraising. The public is smart enough to know when a politican is "bought".
But even more appropriate is a solution that goes to the heart of the problem, and addresses as well the sentiment I heard expressed during the last campaign, that "They're all crooks." One partisan who told me this said it while expressing the belief that my party was even worse than her party. But if crooks are threatening your home, do you allow in the ones who want to steal your towels, and feel relieved that you've kept out the ones after your TV? No, you try to keep them all out. And what is it that political rogues are after? Money and power. The answer is to reduce the power of government, reduce its influence in every part of our lives, and you don't have to worry about its honesty. We don't have the worries about campaign finance reform in a mayor's race that we do in a senate campaign. Reduce what central government can do, and we won't have to worry about the big races either. And as we devolve power to more local governments, will we merely bring the problem closer to home? Yes, in a sense, but even a totally corrupt local official cannot exercise that much control over our lives; it's a lot easier to move to another town if conditions are intolerable, than to another country. But even local governments should not be the final repository of power, if we merely stop expecting government to do things beyond what is appropriate for government to do.