1 of 12

No

Write now Article Tools

The drive to limit the money spent on political campaigns in particular, as well as so-called "campaign finance reform" laws in general, collapses under the weight of its own internal contradictions. On the one hand, we believe that the political class is hopelessly corrupt, and yet on the other hand, we trust the political class to set rules for fair elections in a way that does not ultimately benefit the political class.

Spending lots of money on an election campaign does not guarantee electoral success,(ask Mitt Romney, Steve Forbes and Ross Perot) but electoral history suggests that insufficient spending does not breed success.

The 1974 Campaign Finance Law, passed by Congress in the wake of the Watergate scandal, placed a $25,000 spending limit on Congressional campaigns. This limit was found to be an unconstitutional violation of free speech rights by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo.

In enacting the spending limit, Congress never explained the rationale for this number. Why $25,000 and not $30,000? or $20,000. The most revealing aspect of the $25,000 limit was this: In 1972, the last election before the Campaign Finance Act, not one incumbent congressman lost his/her seat to a challenger who spent $25,000 or less. It is examples like this that lend credence to the charge that so-called "campaign finance reform" initiatives are simply "incumbent protection" acts in disguise. Trusting the political class to set fair spending limits on campaigns is like asking Willie Sutton to guard the bank vaults. It won't work. Even assuming the good faith of the lawmakers, spending limits hurt challengers far more than they hurt incumbents who have the media's attention when they make speeches, propose bills, and show up at ribbon cutting ceremonies for this or that project they funded.

The fact is that political campaigns cost money and time, and the higher the stakes the more money and time it takes. Now if you are running for school board in your town (as I have done), you might be able to get away with knocking on a few hundred doors and making some phone calls. But even there, it takes a few thousand dollars for you and your fellow candidates to get the word out. Now if you are seeking state or federal office, then your geographic area becomes too large for one person or even a handful of people to cover. Since you cannot clone yourself, you need to attract people to your cause to help you out, and that takes money. Even if you have a an army of volunteers, you still need to pay for phone banks, and you better have a campaign treasurer who knows election law, which is a byzantine maze of rules that serve as traps for the unwary. If Jimmy Stewart were running for Congress today, his campaign would never have gotten off the ground, as he would have had to spend all his time and money in court defending himself.

In sum, spending limits are unworkable and unconstitutional.

Learn more about this author, Matthias Deangelo.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Should there be spending limits on political campaigns? ?
We want to hear your view. Write now!