Monday, 18 February 2008
Is Restricting The First Amendment Working?
Last week, Andrew Horne was the first candidate to drop out in the race for the U.S. Senate against Sen McConnell. While it still isn't known why he stopped his campaign, I have a pretty good idea what one of the top reasons was.
Horne, meanwhile, raised $51,543 and lent his campaign $4,945 by Dec. 31. Facing two millionaires who could pump in money might have reminded him of the tough conditions he faced in 2006, when John Yarmuth wrote personal checks to help him beat Horne in Louisville's Democratic congressional primary.
The fact of the matter was he never had the money to compete in the Democratic primary on a state wide level. His opponents are self financed and can pump thousands of their own money into the race to make up for lack of donations. Interestingly enough, this is the second time Horne has been knocked out by self financed candidates.
Each year, races for elected office are becoming more and more expensive. This phenomena is occurring at every level of race. All the while liberals and moderates complain about the money in politics. What is their solution to the problem? More restrictions on the first amendment. They want greater reductions on the amount of money that candidates can raise from an individual.
Their goal of reducing money's influence on candidates has had a horrible side effect that is becoming more evident every election cycle. Only people with immense wealth can run for public office.
In 2006, Yarmuth! won because he was able to tap into his individual wealth not only in the primary, but in the general election. Horne was left out in the cold. In 2007, the top 3 vote getters in the Democratic gubernatorial where the wealthiest candidates. Speaker Richards finished well out of the hunt and Miller never even finished. It was Beshear and Lunsford who fought it out for the top spot. Both candidates were extremely wealthy. Both lent money to thier campaigns. Now, Horne has been eliminated by two multi-millionaires in the 2008 U.S. Senate race.
Personally, I find the irony delicious that the candidate of the left, Horne, has been defeated by the left's ridiculous notions about campaign finance. Even so, until we can rid ourselves of draconian campaign finance laws, we will find ourself in a society where only the wealthy can run for public office.
It's time to either rid ourselves of donation limits, or at least raise the level to something reasonable like $100,000. But won't it dramatically effect the amount of corruption in politics? I doubt it. Corruption and the influence of big money will always be around as long as the government can dramatically effect our lives. If the power of government wasn't so great, it wouldn't be worth it for people to throw money at politicians. It is a simple free market solution. If the goods (politicians) were not worth buying (donating to) then price for the goods (political office) will come down.
Unfortunately, the goal of a smaller government is not the direction we are taking. So, as long as government is going to reach into every aspect of American life, we might as well make it possible for candidates of lesser means be allowed to run. That will only be possible if it is easier for candidates to raise campaign funds.
