Freedom Matters

Campaign Finance Proposal Is Another "Scam Plan"

by Mitch Moore

Libertarians and conservatives alike agree way too much money is used to buy political influence. Under a corrupt political system "The best government money can buy" is the best we can hope for. Efforts to reform the system have always made it worse because however noble sounding the effort, the details bedevil. The latest attempt, which will appear on Missouri's ballot this November, is as misleading as it is misguided.

First, let me point out that I have run four political campaigns without soliciting a dime in campaign contributions against well-financed Republicans and Democrats. I have proven my credibility as a person who stands against Big Money influence in the political process.

The current proposal put forward by a group that calls itself "Missouri Voters for Fair Elections," would actually make the system worse. It will give your tax dollars to the least needy segment of our society--major party politicians.

This proposal sets up a system whereby the major parties can raise millions of dollars for their candidates with a few computer keystrokes. Independents and alternative party candidates are effectively excluded from receiving funds.

This proposal does nothing to reduce the amount of money in campaigns. In fact, it guarantees that even more money will flow around election time.

The money that a special interest group might otherwise have paid to a candidate's campaign would now go to fund cleverly coordinated campaigns to help the candidates of their choice.

For example, although Planned Parenthood will be restricted from giving money directly to their supporters in political races, they can use their money to fund "informational" television campaigns that closely track what their favorite candidates are saying. Likewise, the anti-choice crowd will have the same sort of coordinated campaigns with their favored politicians.

The result is more money in the campaigns, more money in the system, and less accountability as the connections between special interest groups and candidates are no longer disclosed.

Another feature of this scam plan is to penalize a candidate whose grassroots supporters use their money to publish letters to the editor or advertisements in the newspaper. The media, or course, remain free to promote their favorite candidates without penalty. The right to speak freely will exist only if you own a newspaper or some other major media outlet.

Such loopholes and fatal flaws abound in this plan. The laws against untraceable cash contributions have always been almost impossible to enforce. There is a question of how political campaign signs, bumper stickers, and literature from prior campaigns should be counted. This is not addressed in the proposal, and the omission favors incumbents, as do most such plans. The last thing we need is an incumbent protection act.

The enforcement process will be biased against minor political parties and independents and gives the present government more control over elections. The partisan Ethics Commission, composed only of Democrats and Republicans, will have responsibility for enforcing the law. Independents and candidates from other parties will be subject to unequal treatment and harassment from the partisan commission.

Past attempts at campaign finance reform have always been unenforceable. We now fund presidential campaigns this way and have found that the system does not work. It has become notoriously corrupt. Candidates from both major parties break the law, a special counsel investigates, but no one is ever penalized. While this proposal will encourage more "gotcha" investigations like those we now have at the federal level, all we will end up with is more bureaucrats and more money spent, with the same lack of results. In fact, by the time any violation is discovered and litigated the perpetrators will have served their terms in office--but not a day in prison.

To effectively enforce this plan, the authorities would have to repeal the First Amendment. This ballot issue strikes at the core of how we perceive ourselves as a country, with our free speech and voluntary association.

The supporters of these so-called "reforms" always seem more interested in the appearance of reform than in real reform. There are ways to make the system better without letting the foxes design the chickenhouse.

Taxpayers should not have to pay for party primaries. To return to grassroots democracy, parties should elect state delegates to a state convention. Let the candidates come to that convention and woo the delegates, and let the party pay for it.

Real reform would include not giving tax dollars to any candidate or to any political party. The fact that the presidential candidate for the Reform Party is "entitled" to $12.6 million in public funds has corrupted the Reform Party. The candidates for the two major parties can qualify for over $100 million. Think of the corruption that could cause.

Access to the system should be made easier, not more difficult. Fair ballot access would encourage more independents and alternative parties to present their ideas to the electorate, a popular notion according to most surveys.

Allowing fusion candidates-- candidates who run as members of more than one party--may also improve the system. In years past, I might have run as both a Libertarian and a Green.

Proportional representation is another idea that will allow voters more than just a choice between two evils. For instance, if there were three candidates and voters had a choice for their first preference and their second preference, good candidates who have less money and who are not supported by the major parties would win more elections.

Of course, much of the problem with campaign finance is that the media demand a costly show. Maybe we should attack the problem from that end and demand more from the media. We've been successful in getting the media to voluntarily address issues of obscenity and violence on television. Perhaps we could get them to voluntarily report on the sources of campaign funds which, at this time, they rarely do. Of course, sources of campaign funds should appear on the Internet for all to see. Maybe sources of media advertising revenues, too.

The current proposal does not take private money out of the electoral process. It merely shifts it. The money chase continues. Only now it will be driven partially underground. We are much better off not to let that happen. There are better ways.

Mitch Moore is a Columbia resident and Libertarian candidate for Attorney General.

This page was last updated Sun-24-Sep-2000.

Click Here to return to my home page.