Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Campaign Finance Reform is bad for Democracy
We are now in the final stretch toward the Iowa vote. The story that needs to be told more clearly is that "big money" is truly over-rated. A look at both races detail the limits of big spending politicians. Mitt Romney has slipped into second place though he has drastically outspent the field. Hillary and Obama are struggling with Edwards even though they have outspent him severely. Huckabee is rising based on his ideas. He is the least funded first tier candidate. This boom in Iowa has lead to bursts in polls all over the country. This opportunity should indicate to people who want to limit donations to candidates that these rules are not necessary. The best campaign finance laws should mandate full disclosure, and that's it. If Romney can give his own campaign millions, why shouldn't he be able to give another candidate's campaign the same amount if he weren't a candidate? Everyone would know that "that's Mitt Romney's candidate". The rules don't work, many of those who want to help a candidate will find a way. Whereas maybe a Dodd, Biden, or Hunter could break out with a large donation from a wealthy person or corporation. I don't know. We don't know. What we do know is that money doesn't corrupt the process. We do know money will still get into the process. It should. We do know there are positive and negative aspects to be a well-funded candidate- like high expectations, and public backlash for over-spending. So all in all. Let's go with freedom, and let freedom work in the political process.