Consider two possibilities.
- Campaign spending has a negligible effect on election outcomes.
- The voting public is so ignorant and impressionable that campaign spending can readily sway an election.
Empirically 1) is more defensible; the “vast empirical
literature” supports the conclusion that there is no effect of campaign
spending on election outcomes. But let’s assume 2) for the moment. In that
case, the problem is far too deep to be solved by “campaign finance reform.”
Assuming that an election can be bought under free-wheeling “campaign finance
policy 1” but reverts to the other candidate under a more restrictive “campaign
finance policy 2”, it’s not at all clear that the more restrictive regime is
better than the freer one. It’s not clear that the 1 gives you better policies,
or that the results of 1 are imbued with greater moral virtue. If “the will of
the people” is swayed by such a trivial influence, we need to doubt whether
that’s even a meaningful concept. Dumb, impressionable voters pick bad
policies. It’s no consolation that they weren’t influenced by money. Remove the
influence of money, and some other meretricious influence will take its place.
Consider several ways that politics is unfairly biased in a
way that can lead to bad policy:
Money influences politics, far beyond the actual merit of
the policies it wins.
Public sector unions influence politics, far beyond the
actual merit of the policies they win.
Sympathetic interest groups influence politics, far beyond
the actual merit of the policies they win.
Economic populism influences politics, far beyond the actual
merit of the policies it wins.
(Similar parallel structures for religion, defense
hawkishness, nationalism, etc.)
Money is not the only thing that exerts an undue influence
over politics. It’s not even the most destructive biasing influence.
No comments:
Post a Comment