It is, however, an iron law: The more government does to influence the flow of money, the more money will be spent to influence elections.
-George Will ( The Conservative Sensibility)
(H/T: Cafe Hayek)
I’ve been saying a similar thing for years – when the stakes of holding the levers of Power go up, more money is spent to grab those levers (e.g., campaigns for both elected officials and for advocacy issues). What I keep saying, which is also true, is the reverse: if you HATE the amount of money being spent on politics and wish to downsize it, then downsize the amount of money IN government (what it spends) as well. The less that is spent, the less interest there will be in spending what remains.
Easily done but for one thing: even as it is the Democrats that want less money spent for elections, they continue to advocate for a Bigger Government that costs more and intrudes more. See the problem – they IGNORE the problem they are creating (Right, Concord City Councilor and Open Democracy spox Olivia Zink – this IS your fault!). Instead, they deflect with buffoonery that would have citizens divvy up contributions with….wait for it….Government money! Even MORE money!
That’s right – let government fund its own elections. No, not just the mechanism of voting itself but GIVING out even MORE money to candidates directly. Now ask yourself – which Party do you think would be best served by this structure?
And for the record, no, it would not cut down money spent on elections at all.
