More Money In Politics--Not Less

John Stossel, a co-ancher on ABC's 20/20 has posted on Townhall.com a column stating the rather obvious, that many campaign finance rules and other political law questions are nothing more than incumbent protection rackets thinly disguised as good government reform. But for what I think is the first in a posting by a prominent media personality, Stossel says this about campaign finance:

Spending and speech limits are anti-democratic. Gene McCarthy said it well when he pointed out that the Founders pledged their "lives, fortunes and sacred honor" to win the Revolution. They didn't say, "lives and fortunes up to $1,000."

We need more money, not less, spent on politics. What's spent on campaigns now is less than is spent advertising potato chips. Let the outsiders speak. (emphasis added)

I certainly agree, so long as disclosure regulations remain in place.

Casual readers of this blog may think I am anti-campaign finance regulation and to a certain extent that is true. But I am a big believer in full-disclosure. The impact of disclosure is negligible on speech activity, but it makes sure that everyone is aware of where a candidate is getting their money, information which can inform voting decisions.

But beyond disclosure of funding, I start to get very nervous about regulations of campaign and political activity. I get even more wary when Congress starts talking about regulating political activity in the name of fighting corruption.

The whole premise of the original Federal Eleciton Campaign Act was based on the idea of preventing actual corruption or the appearance of corruption. Disclosure, and certain limitations on other activity, ensures that the public is aware, usually through the media.

But incumbent actity in the campaign finance realm reaks of self-interest. This motivation of course is to be expected, but if the regulation focused more on disclosure of activity, rather than regulation of actity, I think there would be far less backlash in this regulatory arena.