The Censorship Known as Campaign Finance Reform


“If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” -- SCOTUS

We’ve had two major rounds of  “campaign finance reform” violating the first amendment in the past forty years. Each one has turned out to INCREASE the very bribery and corruption they were supposed to end, becoming the very means of filtering money to candidates or officials, and promoting causes out of proportion with their real support.

This is because:

  • The Law of Unintended Consequences. Imposing simplistic “order”, by force, on a complex system always produces unexpected results, usually the opposite of what you intended.
  • Each one increased the power of government, making bribery of government that much more profitable
  • As long as government has power that is profitable, the private sector will pay WHATEVER it takes to obtain it. If the “reforms” made bribery more difficult, then it simply raised the cost, which made accepting bribes more profitable to the GOVERNMENT, increasing the incentive for officials to be corrupt.
  • By “organizing” the thing in question, through imposing a government bureaucracy on it, the “reforms” just create an orderly, static way of bribing government officials and calling it “legal”.

Doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results is the definition of…stupidity.

It is stupid to expect future, censorship-oriented “Campaign finance reform” to do anything but increase corruption and abuse, the way all previous ones did…even if it targets the speech of people who are associated with corporations.

Advertisements

You’re Censoring People, not Corporations


The moment a corporation stands up, like Frankenstein’s Monster, and starts talking without human intervention, I’ll agree that they might be censored.

But the fact is that a “corporation” is comprised of individuals, and THEY have their freedom of speech protected…even while they work for or own that corporation.

Censorship advocates, like judicial nominee Elena Kagan, and Liberal Republican John McCain, want to silence people, on the flimsy premise that they happen to be members of a corporation. They are violating the first amendment, because individuals are writing the copy that is being banned from publication.

You might as well censor them for belonging to a political party. We could just say “the constitution protects individuals, not parties”.

For that matter, publishing houses, newspapers, and blog hosting sites are corporations…everything they publish could be censored the same way.

You could censor the corporation if it tried to talk like some monstrous creation, but not the employees and management of the company who are actually buying political ads or other speech.

%d bloggers like this: