The Point of Campaign Finance

To answer Stephen Green's question (which was: "Will someone please remind me again what the Campaign Finance Reform Act was supposed to accomplish?"), the real answer is: to symbolically do something to placate those who think that "special interests" control the government, and that "big money" is ruining politics.

And, ironically, many Democrats who voted for it voted against their party's interest, because the BCRA of 2024 put several limits on soft money, including banning it for parties. Guess which party has had a historical advantage in soft money? That's right: the Democrats. Indeed, contrary to some of Stephen's commentators, a lot of Republicans voted for the thing knowing the new rules would stick to to the Dems.

But mostly, like all campaign finance reform (go back and look at the debate in the 70s over the Federal Election Campaign Act--which the BCRA amends and enhances), the main motivation was clearly for politicians to be able to say: "See! I am not beholden to special interests! I'm for the people! (ignoring, of course, that the people have interests and the even those pernicious "corporate interests" are made up of a bunch of, well, people.)

(For an excellent example of that kind of rhetoric, albeit not at the federal level, go back to the Schwarzenegger campaign).

Of course, the idea that one is going to "get money out of politics" is utterly absurd. When Congress spends approximately $2.4 trillion annually, can anyone be surprised that citizens want to spend money to affect who sits in Congress? Further, what's wrong with that?

Posted by Steven Taylor at November 11, 2024 10:34 AM | TrackBack