Many on the Left talk about getting money out of politics, and as supposed evidence of this they cite their criticism against the Supreme Court for saying that Citizens United is constitutional.
Do those on the Left want to get money out of politics and what do they mean when they say they want to get money out of politics? Do they want to literally get money out of politics by removing legal tender laws and the Federal Reserve so what is money and how much money exists is no longer determined by politics? Do they want to get money out of politics by making it where who gets money is not decided by politicians, but by the market? Do they support getting money out of politics by not having government getting involved in the economy and redistributing wealth? Do they want to get money out of politics by making it where politics does not decide how much money people get, for example by removing minimum wage laws or government investment in research and green energy (aka government contracting)? Do they want to get money out of politics by removing the taxing power of the state where money is literally out of politics by having it where those in politics don’t have money? The answer to the above all is no. When the Left says to get money out of politics they are not being sincere
What the Left wants to do is limit the amount of money people can donate to a candidate of their choice. Why do they want to do this? Because the Left believes that the Corporations are controlling the government and disapprove of the political views many corporations support. Those on the Left believe that the Republicans get most of their support from the rich so a clever way to stifle Republican policies is to limit the amount of campaign contributions of the Republicans supposed biggest supporters: The Corporations and “the rich.” For evidence of this, notice how the Left is not interested in limiting the power of Unions, but goes after Corporations instead.
The Democrats have no problem with government bribery. They are fine with compulsory unionization. They are fine with government bribing people by promising “free” goodies in exchange for votes. The Democrats believe that most of their voters are the poor and middle-class and since there are more poor and middle-class than there are rich people, limiting the amount of money given to campaign contributions hurts the Republicans more than the Democrats. Since the Democrats believe their base is not the rich, the way to garner more Democratic support is to limit the amount of resources their opposition can give to stop them. “Getting the money out of politics” is just a clever catchphrase the Left uses to stifle free speech by those who would use their resources to oppose Democratic policies, while Democrats support leaving the door open to have the government and their supporters (like Unions) be free to bribe people and engage in rent-seeking.
Likewise, if it is really true that government is corrupt and being bribed to do the bidding of their donors then why would you support the government deciding the limit on individual campaign contributions? If the government has shown to be corrupt then why trust them with more power over deciding how much people should contribute instead of allow such decisions to remain in the hands of those who own the resources? It would seem to me that the way to reduce government corruption is to reduce the power of the state instead of increasing it.
Limiting the amount of money people can give to campaigns is a violation of people’s right of freedom of speech and the right to decide how people’s money should be spent. If it’s my money, I and not the government, should decide who I give the money to and how much I decide to give. Just because some people disapprove of how I spend my money doesn’t give them the right to stop me, anymore than it gives me the right to control how their money should be being spent. Stopping bribery and corruption is a good thing but the way to do it is not by taking away people’s freedom, but by reducing the amount of power government has in our lives.
Some say that money is not the same as free speech, yet the deceased Antonin Scalia was right on this issue. To use his example, imagine a ruling where the government limited the amount of money which can be spent on ink and paper, or the amount of newspapers one can own. Does this not limit freedom of expression and freedom of the press by having government putting a cap on how much resources people can spend by getting their ideas out there?
It is naive and stupid to believe government won’t be susceptible to bribery. Putting a cap on how much people are able to donate to the candidate of their choice won’t end corruption, all it will do is make it where the money given to politicians is given through the back door and in secret instead of out in the open. The idea that a politician will say, “No sorry, I won’t take your money even if done in secret and people won’t find out about it,” means you are naive and ill-informed. There is no need to impose your ignorance and naivety in the form of legislation that limits people’s freedom on how to spend their own money.
Do Democrats Really Want to Get Money Out of Politics? The Short Answer is No