by Larik Sonfar

Created on: May 22, 2008

America is both the womb and the heart of modern democracy. In 1789 our founders set out with the purpose of establishing a government for the people and by the people, a government guided by the illuminating lights of equality and freedom. Democratic decisions were to be made by the voice of all Americans speaking in unison, with no one man's opinion drowning out those his fellow citizens.

Politicians and their campaigns in virtually every election have claimed to promote and defend these values. Ironically, these same campaigns have been increasingly sullied over the last twenty years by the rapid rise of campaign spending. Such excessive spending, while theoretically contributing to a democratic process, is actually a manifest violation of democratic principles.

The current level of influence that money has in politics allows the wealthy disproportionate power. The political momentum' built by leaders in fundraising, combined with the raw power of cold hard cash has made money indispensable to those running for public office. The media, and consequently the public at large, have come to equate fundraising returns with democratic success. Candidates lacking the profit margins of a ravenous corporation are declared to be "in serious trouble." Conversely, candidates able to amass a mountain of gold are instantly transformed into "frontrunners". Even those not prematurely left for dead soon find themselves buried alive under a sandstorm of costly advertising. Finally, burdened by both a prior debt to contributors and the impending necessity of future elections, politicians in office are bound to put the special interests of monetary supporters above the common interests of America and their own moral consciences.

The spawn of this ugly mating between government and money is an even uglier habit of offensive and misleading advertising. Commercials often come in the form of exaggerated, petty, or even blatantly false attacks on a candidate's personal life rather than his public platform. Healthy discourse over issues is often subverted for vitriolic mud-slinging. This soundly refutes any claims that campaign financing falls under the umbrella of free speech. Free speech is not a right born into a vacuum. Rather, it has a firm philosophical background in the works of John Stuart Mills and other Enlightenment Era liberals as a right key to the prevention of political oligarchy and the functioning of the market place of ideas. Yet excessive campaign spending violates both of these principles by upsetting the balance of political power and inhibiting the healthy discussion of important issues facing the nation.

A final objection to increasing enactment and enforcement of limits on campaign donations is the classic laissez-faire argument that government restrictions on the ways in which individuals can spend their money violates the spirit of capitalism. Yet this argument ignores the nature of campaign finance restrictions. No one disputes that the people have a right to use their earnings however they want. In fact, they have every right to try and buy the American government. The government just doesn't have the right to try and sell it.

*This article is simply a general case presented in favor of one side of a debate, it does not represent the holistic views of the author.

Learn more about this author, Larik Sonfar.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.