No on Proposition 89
People who think that the vast amount of money spent by politicians is a sign of corruption drive me nuts. As The Only Republican in San Francisco discussed, it’s really a sign of health. People claim that a politician with a great deal more money is somehow corrupt, or that the candidate with less money is at a disadvantage. Rather it is not a sign of corruption, but rather an indication that the candidate with more money to spend has more support (with the exception of nutjob Ned Lamont). People donate money because they support a candidate. Thus, more support leads to more money, more money leads to a better campaign. It’s something I’ve written about in the past in my response to Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s hopes of banning all lobbyist contributions.
What Rep. Pelosi fails to understand is the same erroneous thought process that is the basis for Proposition 89, which would create “clean money” elections to “level the playing field”. Essentially, if Prop 89 passes, candidates who qualify would be eligible for government financing if they choose to eschew private contributions. If the opposing candidate out-fundraises the “clean money” candidate, the Government will match that amount, thus ensuring that each candidate has equal funds, contradictory to the support=money scenario above. Whether or not you deserve the financial support, the government will give it to you. We should all recognize government funded elections as a huge failure, contradictory to the US system.
In our current financing scheme a candidate who supports an extreme ideal is unlikely to gain much support, and will, thus, not gain much financial backing, lowering his chances in the election. This is a logical cause-and-effect scenario. However, under the somewhat socialist model proposed by proposition 89, such extreme candidates will be entitled to equal financial backing, paid for by the state. After all, we wouldn’t want him to be at a disadvantage. Prop 89 fails to understand why a candidate does not have financial support.
The concept that Proposition 89 will somehow eliminate corruption is also absurd, and seems to rely on the mistaken premise that political contributions are nothing more than bribes. Rather, political contributions are a type of freedom; freedom of speech/expression by allowing people and companies to support the candidates they wish. Occassionally a candidate can be bought. Yet, even with public financing a candidate is still able to accept personal bribes. Consider Rep. Duke Cunningham, or Senator Harry Reid.
Proposition 89 would not level the playing field, it would give an extra advantage to those who don’t deserve it at the expense of those who do. It would stifle the freedom of expression we currently enjoy, and create an unfair, unrepresentative financial support system. If one wants to target corruption, there are better ways to do it.
Cross-posted at The Gentle Cricket
November 7th, 2006 at 12:14 am
November 2006 Voting Recommendations…
The myriad of candidates and propositions on the California ballot this year is truly astounding. It took me days to wade through it all and go through all of the information, pro and con, that has appeared in my mailbox….
November 7th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
[...] 2006 Election Guide for Voting “Right” » The True Ideological Battle » PR War, BS Election » If Votes Fall Short, Demsto Redeploy from Congress » My Predictions » What Missouri’s Amendment 2 is Really Saying » John Murtha: Face of the Anti-War Left to the End » An Open Challenge to John Kerry » VOTE! » Mainstream Media and Democrats: Terrorists New Best Friends » I Told You So » British Doctors: Kill sickest newborns » Saddam Death Verdict Sign of Iraq’s Progress » Saddam Hussein: Guilty » No Shame: Latin leaders set to condemn U.S. border fence » No on Proposition 89 » God Bless our Troops » NY Times Inadvertently Admits Iraq Was Nuclear Leader » Dems Overly Optimistic About Congressional Races » These Guys Must Be Using Some Expensive Drugs List all posts » [...]