Ruth Marcus has an op-ed in today’s Washington Post that defends the Obama campaign’s decision to support super PACs (“it would be foolish to unilaterally disarm”) but complains, “it could have trumpeted its support for American Priorities without deploying campaign officials. It could have deployed campaign officials without involving the administration. Instead, it chose to push the envelope.”
I think all this flap misses the point. The question is not, as many both right and left seem to think, whether the president is being hypocritical. That’s a minor issue and the concept that one plays under the rules as they are is pretty strong currency.
Rather, the issue is that the reaction to president’s move undercuts the entire argument for campaign-finance regulation. It shows how nobody on the left really believes what they always say about campaign contributions and spending. No one (well, almost no one) believes that this will change the president’s preferred policies; or how he governs; or whom he appoints to office; or his willingness to work with Congress. No one thinks that this is drowning out any element of the Democratic party, or frankly, its Republican rivals. Certainly Ruth Marcus isn’t rethinking her general appraisal of the president, his administration, or its policies. She just wishes he would still support speech restrictions, or at least embrace freedom in this one area with a little less ardor.
So-called reformers always say that the super PACs that have blossomed thanks to the U.S. Court of Appeals decision in SpeechNow.org v. FEC, and the corporate and union participation allowed by Citizens United v. FEC, are corrupting. But they don’t act on their statements when actually evaluating candidates. This is not an example of hypocrisy but of a similar and equally common phenomenon, what economists call a “revealed preference.”
It turns out that the “reformers” do not believe money is corrupting. Rather, they believe that their political opponents are corrupt. Polling data shows this is true: Polling data routinely shows that voters whose party has lost the last election are far more likely to distrust the government. But that is a thin reed for regulating political speech across the board.
It will be interesting to see if super PACs really do change the administration’s policies. I think we can be pretty sure that the answer will be no. And that’s a pretty strong indictment of the whole argument for campaign-finance “reform.”
— Bradley A. Smith is Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School.
"It turns out that the “reformers” do not believe money is corrupting."
Then they must be complete idiots. Of course it's corrupting, which is bad. The issue is that trying to stem to flow of money also violates freedom of speech, and that is also bad. Reasonable minds can differ on how to balance those two bads.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd yet, none of President Obama's defenders (or critics) seem worried that this obviously corrupting money will corrupt him. Why is that?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSupporting a politician with whom you agree is inherently corrupting?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusere: Ruth Marcus “it would be foolish to unilaterally disarm” .. except or course in regards to our nuclear deterrent where Obama's recent trial balloon is 300 or less.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBeat me to the comment, yes if it makes America weaker then unilateral disarmament is quite alright.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI believe that both parties are susceptible to institutionalized bribery in the form of campaign donations, and the new laws will make it easier. It's not related to political beliefs as much as it is human nature and the culture of power and influence that is spread throughout DC.
It's a lot less likely for money to corrupt a president than for a senator or congressman. A president is more visible, which will prevent some of the ability to give kickbacks without oversight.
But senators and congressmen have the ability to more easily bury a reward for a campaign contribution in a bill, or kill a bill in committee, or steer their peers behind the scenes.
Plus, given the money that is spent in presidential elections, it may be more cost effective and more useful for a company to "buy" a few legislators than to try and influence a president. To make a contribution that would dramatically effect a presidential election, it would be in the tens of millions of dollars, and that is a lot of money to give out, and the risk of being recognized for the contribution would greatly increase.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou'd think people like Ruth Marcus would have learned their lessons from the experience of the 20th Century:
"If you want to get behind a leader who shows no loyalty to anyone other than himself, pivots on a dime, and observes law and rules only when they're tactically convenient, fine. But do please spare us your shock and outrage when that same leader puts you in front of a firing squad."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWant to reduce money in campaigns? Put in term limits.
If what you're buying has a clear, relatively short, shelf life; there's not much need to lard them up (assuming they can be bought in the first place).
Now if you've got a life long pol, with no interest in moving out, that controls (or may control) all kinds of matters you might need "influenced", well, that's going to take a LOT more money....EVERY election, no?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Supreme Court has said you can't impose term limits on seats in Congress and the Senate.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you want to get money out of politics, the only way to do it is to make congressmen not worth buying in the first place.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEliminate the power of govt to decide who wins and who loses in the marketplace.
Amen. As I have stated often on NRO and other places, if people want to eliminate money in politics, then they should demand small government. If you have big government, you will have tons of money in politics, regardless of whatever well-intentioned laws that are passed to limit it. It is absurd to think otherwise.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAlternatively, or in addition, impose sunset rules on all regulations that meet or exceed some threshold of cost or scope, i.e. require periodic up-or-down votes to keep them on the books. If the impact of a given bribe has a built in expiration date requiring another bribe, no one stays bought by design.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePrecisely. From Gitmo, to the Patriot Act, to the "invasion of a soveriegn country" (remember that liberal standby in the days before Osama's execution?), and now to the SuperPacs, Obama's most significant accomplishments may be that he has vindicated the policies of hsi predecessor(s), and proved that the left's denunciation of them as "immoral" was bankrupt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRepublicans plainly do not believe that money corrupts--only a small part of the Democratic Left--which is already alienated from Obama--believes that. The political realists in both parties know that the game is about money, lots of it. We have the best politicians money can buy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse“it would be foolish to unilaterally disarm”
... unless, of course, you're talking about our nuclear arsenal. Then, you can unilaterally disarm to your heart's content!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse