Campaign Finance limitations – dumb idea; $$ for messaging still doesn’t translate to votes

Free speech under assault againThere’s Larry Lessig’s PAC, the MayDay PAC, that is raising and spending millions of dollars this election cycle – to stop others from spending so much money.  So, too, is George Soro’s son.  The Left is as well.  Sorry, their stated of “taking the money out”, I believe, masks the real reason – stopping free speech (e.g., US Supreme Court’s “Citizen United” decision).  So even when Michelle Bachman starts complaining, I just shrug:

Retiring Rep. Michele Bachmann says it’s time to consider campaign spending limits, saying the levels of money raised and spent by candidates in recent elections have gotten out of whack.

“I believe that it is ridiculous the amount of money we’re spending on these elections; it’s gone into the realm of the bizarre and absurd, and even for Washington, D.C., standards,” the Minnesota Republican said Wednesday during an event hosted by the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington.

Bachmann’s comments come four years after raising $13 million for her successful 2010 re-election bid to the House.

“That’s crazy money. That’s crazy that any candidate should have to raise that kind of money,” she said.

Maybe.  Maybe not.  Best example here in NH was  Bill Binnie’s run for US Senate back in the last cycle – the “hundreds millionaire” spent and spent wildly to be the replacement for Judd Gregg. In the end, however, he lost and if I remember right, spending was around $400 / vote received in the end.  Now THAT is crazy.  But, he had earned that money, it should be his to spend.  Yes, he got his message out – over and over and over again.  The voters rejected it soundly and decisively (and we ended up with Kelly “flip-flopping on Amnesty” Ayotte).  As with any application of Free Speech, his message went out – and was ignored as Free Speech says someone gets to say it but the rest of us can just keep passing by and talking amongst ourselves.  The REAL problem is the one that nobody wants really address because the politicians want to be the focus point, the political operatives want to profit from it, and the monied special interests are willing to pay the price.

That reason?  The price is so high because the consequences for payouts are even higher.  Government, at all levels, spend trillions and that spent money has to go somewhere for something made or delivered by somebodies.  That’s one reason. Profits.  Government is SO BIG that such influence over that spending can be a windfall for the receiver of it.

But that, in my mind, is the lesser of the two evils.  The worst is that there are those that are hellbent in seeing (or being in) control of others.  They have their notion of how people need to behave and being unable to persuade others to do as they desire voluntarily, have no problem in using their money to influence Govt to demand people act in one way or another.  If those “malcontents” end up in jail for disobeying, well, that’s part and parcel of their outlook.

So, the answer to this is NOT to restrain campaign spending – that is merely the symptom, not the disease.  The size of Govt, and the outsized influence over EVERYTHING is the actual disease.  Reduce that spending, reduce that influence wielding, and campaign financing / cost of campaigning will plummet simply due to the simple fact that the cost will be higher than any perceived benefit.

But since Progressives (those that believe they have the inherent right to control your life) require Big Govt to do so, I doubt this will happen.  Simply put, Progressives and other Big Govt politicians simply want to reduce their upfront costs but still have the outsized influence – over you and your family.