Campaign Finance Part 3 (A Better System)

It seems to me that these campaign finance restrictions are neither narrowly tailored nor effective at limiting the appearance of corruption. How about a little sunshine instead?

My alternative is to scrap the whole system with one exception. Allow people to give as much money as they like to the candidates of their choice. But at the same time require instant reporting of those contributions on the Internet. If voters believe that a candidate will be beholden to someone because of a large contribution, then they are free to vote against them.

This plan would unburden the First Amendment.

It would make bundling and straw donors unnecessary and allow voters to see who is really behind the contributions.

It would reduce the advantage of wealthy candidates such as Ross Perot, Jon Corzine, and Mike Bloomberg who have a protected right to self finance. Other wealthy people might or might not choose to make large contributions to their opponents, but at the very least it makes it easier for their opponents to raise money.

It also reduces the advantage of incumbents who have a built in fundraising advantage over most challengers.

Finally, its important to remember that past a certain point campaign spending has diminishing returns. Money is necessary to get your message to the voters, but past a certain point, more advertising might not get you more votes unless voters like your message. Michael Huffington, for example, in 1994 used $28 million of his own money to run what was at the time the most expensive Senate campaign in history. He lost.

Money isn’t everything. It isn’t even the only thing. Get rid of McCain Feingold and let the First Amendment’s heart beat strong and well.