Account Login

803,612 Views
Nov 16, 2015
Presented by
George Will

What corrupts politics more: Millionaires and billionaires? Or the rules that intend to limit the influence of wealthy donors? George Will, author and Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the Washington Post, explains who designed campaign finance reform and why Congress's solution to the problem may actually be the bigger problem.

Campaign finance reform maintains the political status quo by protecting incumbents and career politicians.

  • Campaign finance laws protect incumbents and career politicians from anyone who might challenge them by making it nearly impossible to raise enough money to launch a grassroots political campaign. Campaign finance law doesn’t just maintain the political status quo, it encases it in cement.View Source
  • Related reading: Campaign-Finance Reformers’ First Amendment Problem – George WillView Source
  • Related reading: Campaign Finance: A “Reform” Wisely Struck Down – George WillView Source
  • Related reading: Do Campaign Donations Alter How a Politician Votes? – Stephen G. Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr.View Source
  • Related reading: Why Is There So Little Money In U.S. Politics? – Stephen Ansolabehere et alView Source

Campaign finance reform promotes what it claims to combat: unaccountable outside groups.

  • The rise of Super PACs is a direct result of politicians not being allowed to raise enough money on their own. Super PACs can raise unlimited amounts of money and then publicly say anything in support of and against politicians. And candidates can then spend less time speaking directly to the people and then distance themselves from controversial statements made by their supportive Super PACs.View Source
  • Related reading: Campaign-Finance Reformers’ First Amendment Problem – George WillView Source
  • Related reading: Supreme Court Can Rescue Another Freedom in Campaign Cash – George WillView Source
  • Related reading: Do Campaign Donations Alter How a Politician Votes? – Stephen G. Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr.View Source
  • Related reading: Why Is There So Little Money In U.S. Politics? – Stephen Ansolabehere et alView Source

Incumbent Democrats created campaign finance reform in order to protect incumbent Democrats.

  • Campaign finance reform was started by Democratic politicians to protect their fellow Democratic politicians. The Democrats’ push for curbing free speech through campaign finance reform began after Sen. Eugene McCarthy (D-MN), a non-establishment Democrat, raised enough money from five private donors in 1968 to challenge incumbent Democratic President Lyndon Johnson, which ultimately compelled Johnson not to run for a second term.View Source
  • In other words, proponents of big government do not like the idea that their preferred politicians can be defeated so easily. Campaign finance reform is designed to protect incumbents.View Source
  • Related reading: Campaign-Finance Reformers’ First Amendment Problem – George WillView Source
  • Related reading: Campaign Finance: A “Reform” Wisely Struck Down – George WillView Source
  • Related reading: Why Is There So Little Money In U.S. Politics? – Stephen Ansolabehere et alView Source

Campaign finance reform suppresses and censors free speech by limiting how much citizens can support their candidates.

  • Members of the political parties, the media and entertainment world have a platform with which to influence millions of people politically. For everyone else, the most effective tool is financially supporting politicians they agree with. By limiting the amount of money someone can give to a politician, the government is limiting how much citizens can endorse them in the public sphere, thus suppressing constitutionally protected free speech.View Source
  • The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” Yet over the last few decades, the government’s restrictions on political free speech run more than 800 pages.View Source
  • Related reading: Campaign Finance: A “Reform” Wisely Struck Down – George WillView Source
  • Related reading: Do Campaign Donations Alter How a Politician Votes? – Stephen G. Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr.View Source
  • Related reading: Why Is There So Little Money In U.S. Politics? – Stephen Ansolabehere et alView Source

The Constitution protects free speech, yet the government restrictions on political speech now run more than 800 pages. 

  • The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” Yet over the last few decades, the government’s restrictions on political free speech run more than 800 pages.View Source
  • Related reading: Campaign-Finance Reformers’ First Amendment Problem – George WillView Source
  • Related reading: Campaign Finance: A “Reform” Wisely Struck Down – George WillView Source
  • Related reading: Do Campaign Donations Alter How a Politician Votes? – Stephen G. Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr.View Source
  • Related reading: Why Is There So Little Money In U.S. Politics? – Stephen Ansolabehere et alView Source

Most donors give money to candidates in order to support them—not influence them. 

  • People usually give to politicians with whom they already agree, rather than giving in order to influence them. Most scholars who have studied voting patterns have found that donors have little influence on legislative votes.View Source
  • A comprehensive MIT study, which looked at decades of data, found the notion that campaign contributions heavily influence politicians’ votes to be largely a myth. “Legislators’ votes depend almost entirely on their own beliefs and the preferences of their voters and their party. Contributions explain a miniscule fraction of the variation in voting behavior in the U.S. Congress,” concluded the MIT researchers. For the most part, donors financially support politicians who already vote the way donors want them to.View Source
  • Related reading: Campaign Finance: A “Reform” Wisely Struck Down – George WillView Source
  • Related reading: Do Campaign Donations Alter How a Politician Votes? Or, Do Donors Support Candidates Who Value the Same Things They Do? – Stephen G. Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr.View Source

Myth: The candidate with more money will win. In the 1960, 1964, 1976, and 1996 elections, the candidates with less money won. 

  • That the presidential candidates with more money or the Congressional candidates with “billionaires in their corner” have an unfair advantage against those that don’t is simply false. As Reuters reports: “Studies of the 2012 and 2014 elections by the Sunlight Foundation, a Washington-based non-profit that tracks political spending, show most groups backed by billionaires had less success swaying election outcomes than groups controlled by trade organizations or professional political strategists.” Meanwhile, in the elections of 1960, 1964, 1976, and 1996, the presidential candidate with less money won.View Source
  • Related reading: Campaign-Finance Reformers’ First Amendment Problem – George WillView Source
  • Related reading: Campaign Finance: A “Reform” Wisely Struck Down – George WillView Source
  • Related reading: Do Campaign Donations Alter How a Politician Votes? – Stephen G. Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr.View Source
  • Related reading: Why Is There So Little Money In U.S. Politics? – Stephen Ansolabehere et alView Source

Campaign finance reform is what it pretends to combat: corruption.

Let me say that again, slightly rephrased: campaign finance reform corrupts the political system it presumes to save from corruption.

Now that I’ve taken the trouble to repeat myself, you may be shaking your head, wondering how I could be so… wrong. Don’t we want to “get money out of politics?” Isn’t campaign finance reform an inherent good? The late Senator Eugene McCarthy, the iconic liberal politician of the Vietnam War era, didn’t think so.

McCarthy, a Democrat who represented Minnesota in the Senate from 1959 to 1971, did something unthinkable in 1968. Because of his opposition to the Vietnam War, he challenged a powerful, incumbent President for his party’s presidential nomination.

His challenge to President Lyndon Johnson was possible -- and potent -- only because five wealthy liberals who shared McCarthy’s opposition to the Vietnam War gave him substantial sums of money. Stewart Mott’s $210,000 would be $1.4 million in today’s dollars. The five donors’ seed money enabled McCarthy to raise $11 million dollars or $75 million dollars today.

But, because of campaign finance reform, the most a wealthy quintet could give to help an insurgent against an incumbent today would be $13,000 (five times the individual limit of $2,600). McCarthy didn’t win the nomination, but he did compel Johnson not to run for a second term. In doing so, McCarthy changed history. But the Democratic Party establishment wasn’t happy about it. To stop it from happening again, they pushed for government regulation of political speech.

Thus in reaction to Eugene McCarthy’s insurgency, campaign finance reform was born.

Not much has changed since then.

Whatever their stated intentions, campaign finance laws are not written to protect the public from corrupt politicians, they are written to protect incumbents from anyone who might challenge them. So, not only doesn’t campaign finance reform disrupt the status quo; it encases it in cement.

All the laws that ever have regulated campaigns, or ever will regulate them, have had or will have one thing in common: They have been, or will be, written by incumbent legislators. That is why such laws are presumptively disreputable and usually unconstitutional.

But, reformers shout, politicians are bought and sold by big money interests, and we have to stop this.

These reformers argue two propositions.

One is that corruption is so pervasive and so subtle that it is invisible.

They resemble the zealots who say proof of the conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy is the fact that no proof has been found.

Alternatively, reformers argue that corruption is entirely visible everywhere: If politician A votes in a way that pleases contributor B — particularly if contributor B enjoyed "access" to politician A — that shall be designated corruption.

But there is abundant research demonstrating that money almost always moves toward the politician with whom the contributor already agrees. In other words money is rarely given in order to change a politicians’ votes; it is given in order to support politicians who already vote the way donors want them to.

Nevertheless, reformers increasingly argue (see their justifications for restricting political action committees or PAC’s) that regulating the timing, amount and content of political advocacy is necessary to improve the tone of politics.

These reformers apparently think that what James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, meant when he wrote: "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech,” was really "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech -- unless incumbents think abridgements will help keep them in office.”

Even if it were Congress's business to decide that there is "too much" money in politics, what does “too much” mean?

In the 2007-08 election cycle, spending in all campaigns, from city council members up to the presidency, was $8.6 billion, about what Americans spend annually on potato chips.

Reformers say that regulation of campaign giving and spending will not only spare our leaders the distraction of the governed -- that is, seeking "undue" influence on government, it also will make us think better of government.

But a jaundiced view of government is often sensible, and certainly it is justified by all these campaign regulations, which have become a particularly virulent form of the disease it purports to cure.

So, let me repeat myself a third and final time: Campaign finance reform is what it pretends to combat: corruption.

I’m George Will for Prager University.

You Earned A Badge

Course: Campaign Finance Reform Corrupts

Join PragerU now to claim it

  1. Watch The Video
  2. Claim Your Badge
  3. Take the Quiz
  4. Gild Your Badge

Like what you see? Support PragerU today