Restrictions on Campaign Contributions- A Good Thing? Becker

Posner is clearly correct that the analytical differences between “super Pacs” and direct campaign contributions to candidates are not large enough to justify disparate treatments. Yet, because they should be treated the same way does not necessarily imply that spending by super Pacs should also be sharply controlled. I believe that it is very likely  preferable to apply the reasoning in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to direct contributions than to extend the limits on direct contribution to super Pacs.

I agree with Posner that candidates with political positions attractive to rich individuals may obtain considerable funds that give these candidates political advantages in appealing to voters. Such political contributions may well also affect the policies supported by candidates and elected officials. This is the corruption issue raised by Posner and by much of the literature that supports sharply limiting campaign contributions.

Sharp restrictions on campaign contributions would make more sense if monetary contributions were the only major force that shapes who wins elections and the policies goverment officials support.Yet that is very far from the situation that prevails in American politics, and in the politics of most other democratic nations. One reason for this is that interest groups can often avoid the intent of restrictions on campaign contributions through other ways to influence political outcomes. For example, many industries hire lobbyists and spend other monies to try to persuade legislators, regulators, and others in important political positions to subsidize their industries, or to reduce the taxes on their industries, or to gain other advantages.

It is not only business that is active in these ways since, for example, unions of government employees use political clout to obtain generous pensions and health plans for their members. The tight budgets that are currently being imposed on many national and regional governments-such as the Greek government and state and local governments of the United States- have induced government unions to fight hard to keep their pension and health benefits, and to limit any reductions in these benefits. Similarly, unions of public school teachers have spent considerable money and time to defeat efforts to introduce school vouchers and many other changes in public school systems.

Candidates who galvanize enthusiasm with their oratory and political positions induce many supporters to spend considerable time working to elect these candidates and to promote policies the candidates favor. Time spent by supporters is often as effective and “corrupting” as money spent influencing political outcomes and policies. This is probably especially true in the age of the Internet and other methods of mass communication. Supporters of a particular candidate may spend a lot of time on political issues through blogs, Facebook and other social networks, and through other forms of mass communication. Radio, television, and Internet stars, such as Rush Limbaugh, Bill Moyers, and Matt Drudge, not only affect the views of followers, but also how active they are in supporting conservative or liberal policies.

These reflections lead me to question whether it is wise to control one form of interest group politics; namely, direct and indirect monetary contributions to political campaigns, in an environment where other types of interest group politics are important and are only weakly controlled. I am not denying monetary contributions have a significant effect on who wins elections and the policies that are implemented. The empirical political literature shows rather conclusively that political contributions are influential, although frequently not decisive. However, it is known as well that other interest groups sometimes also have decisive influences over political outcomes through lobbying and many other ways. When other methods of influencing candidates are mainly uncontrolled, it is dubious whether sharp controls over monetary campaign contributions are merited, no matter whether these contributions are indirect or direct.

Comments

[Sam]

interesting

[Peter Pearson]

Note that the goal of allowing "speech" while preventing bribery is largely addressed by allowing unlimited contributions to an anonymizing, "laundering" account. Contribute all you like, but you cannot prove to the officeholder that you made those contributions.

[rxp]

I think that direct expenditures on advertising are materially different from other forms of speech, though, because they are a measure of how many "dollars" are supporting a candidate, rather than how many voters. At least with a large number of enthusiastic supporters, you know that a number of people actually support the candidate.

Elections are based on the principle of "one man, one vote" (modulo the Electoral College, of course), and we should by default be very suspicious of anything which moves us in the direction of "one dollar, one vote", because it would amount to a de facto partial disenfranchisement of large parts of the country.

[Mitchell K.]

"Time spent by supporters is often as effective and “corrupting” as money spent influencing political outcomes and policies."

Becker makes a wonderful point that very few journalists have made. Many of the people who work for a candidate do so with the implicit assumption that they will rewarded by having their policy preferences reflected in the candidates platform or by being appointed to a position within that candidate's office. This includes not just senior advisers but virtual unknowns who act as "bundlers" for a candidate.

These bundlers aggregate large numbers of campaign donations and funnel it towards a campaign. Individual campaign donors are capped at several thousand dollars, but these bundlers can essentially "donate" millions to a candidate. One such bundler for President Obama's 2008 campaign received an appointment to the Department of Energy and was instrumental in securing a government loan to the now-defunct solar panel company Solyndra.

My capping an individual's donation to a candidate, campaign finance laws have empowered bundlers to new heights.

[JCH]

The argument that money and time are similarly influential sidesteps the main issue, which is the vastly disproportionate distribution of money. We all have 24 hours per day and therefore the influence each of us can have is in proportion to our vote. The influence of money varies by many orders of magnitude and therefore gives those with money a disproportionate voice in our politics. One can debate about the extent to which that is a bad thing, but it is an undeniable difference. If you accept the proposition that both money and time support can be corrupting then you must conclude that the "corruption" of money skews the political process in ways that contributing time does not.

[Igor Faynshteyn]

There are 2 flaws in this argument. One is that there are critical differences between Rush Limbaugh/Bill Maher promoting their political viewpoints, and contributions made by individuals or corps to Super PACS. The difference is, as Posner pointed out, is the concern that particularly large contributions from big donors may lead to corruption. And as Posner highlighted, the difference between making contributions to Super PACS and to candidates directly are slim to none.

Therefore, the argument that such contributions to PAC's should not be limited due to the fact that similar regulations are not, and likely cannot, be imposed on Rush or Maher, or FB, or Youtube does not seem relevant.

Secondly, even assuming the validity of that argument, the conclusion that therefore contributions should not be limited to PAC's is only one possibility. The alternative conclusion may very well be that perhaps similar regulations can and should be imposed on other expressions of speech.

[Air Jordan 4]

Time is like the water in sponge, as long as willing to squeeze, you can always get some. -lu xun

[free run]

Time spent by supporters is often as effective and “corrupting” as money spent influencing political outcomes and policies.

[Air Max 90]

http://www.nikeairmaxes90shoes.org

[red bull hats]

Thanks for sharing the news about such a wonderful organization.Keep up the great work! Love your blog!

[cheap oakley sunglasses]

http://www.shopoakleys.com
Nowhere in your rambling, incoherent article was there any sign of intelligence. I provide you with no points and could possibly God have mercy in your soul.

[iphone spy]

This is my first time i visit here. I found interesting things too many in your blog, mostly to the debate.

[cheap new era hats]

Your blog has an I liked the faith! You defend your interests, I get my light, nothing more.

[cheap new era fitted hats]

Your blog is very beautiful, the style is very cool! See the things that I think is very interested in oh, thank you for sharing! I wish you good luck!

[louboutin]

These reflections lead me to question whether it is wise to control one form of interest group politics; namely, direct and indirect monetary contributions to political campaigns, in an environment where other types of interest group politics are important and are only weakly controlled.

[rob gronkowski jerseys]

It’s a nice day, and I’m so lucky because I have read your article.

[Beats Monster Headphones]

One thing that we need to clarify is our terminology in this debate.

[Cheap Air Max 2010]

I agree. But the question is the time frame.

[Cheap Air Force Ones]

Thank you for such an informative website and post on the EU debt crisis. This is particularly the case when there seems to be constant and volatile opposition in these weaker EU nations to austerity measures.

[Nike Air Max 90]

Will China Overtake Us? which is good news for both the US and the Chinese people.

[kriti gupta]

I found your post unique in every respect. It’s knowledgeable and informative thanks to post it.

[ES3]

Does unlimited campaign money actually weaken the relative advantage of incumbency?

The argument that weakening one form of support for candidates while others remain unchecked makes sense, but only if those forms of support operate independent of one another. My concern here is that this is not the case. The example that you used, personal fame, WOULD have a larger effect on elections if that fame had no impact on a candidate's ability to attract donors, but I sincerely doubt that this is the case. If donors are giving not for ideological reasons, but to curry favor with potential office-holders, wouldn't it make more sense for them to give their money to a Kennedy who is likely to be an attractive candidate from the getgo than to an unknown upstart? By the same token, it seems likely that unlimited campaign contributions could actually ENHANCE the value of incumbency, because it would seem foolhardy for most donors to bet their money and influence against a candidate who has such a clear advantage.

And if anything, the proof is in the pudding here. If we assume that incumbents are rational actors just like everyone else, it would make sense that they would favor policies that enhance their own chances for re-election. However, despite the general popularity of the separation of money and government among people across the ideological spectrum (from the Tea Party to Occupy Wall Street), politicians are rarely willing to take a stand on it. One very logical explanation would be that they resist campaign finance reform because they know that unlimited contributions actually help them retain their offices.

[keylogger]

I love your blog! You will be in our prayers and thoughts! Nice and informative post on this topic thanks for sharing with us. Thank you!

[New Era MLB Hats]

The picture you post is beautiful.

[cheap OBEY Hats]

I think it is the most significant information for me. Thank you for your sharing.