Political Scientist Ray La Raja, an expert on campaign finance, writes for WGBH that the recent easing of limits on contributions to political parties is beneficial to society. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link. UPDATE: this article includes a chart showing the details of the new limits.
Public financing and only public financing of federal candidates is the only fair way of allowing major party, third party, and Independent candidates to have equal footing before the American voter.
What part about “equal” do some folks not understand?
The premise of the article is total bullshit, Richard, because the limits of individual contributions to political parties would not be problematic if contributions to Super PACS were limited as well, or, if Super PACS did not exist at all.
But perhaps an oligarchy is “beneficial to society?”
If people would view massive political contributions for what they really are – commercial transactions, rather than expressions of “free speech” – they would see limits in a new light.
If I were wealthy, and I contributed a large amount of money to the Libertarian Party to pay off the mortgage on the party’s headquarters, that would not be a “commercial transaction.”
So here we are again, huh?
Richard, I do wish you would finally answer this question, which I have posed to you many times and in many forms in the past.
You’re approaching a supermarket, and you have only a ten dollar bill on you. It’s in your right front pocket. You intend to pick up a necessary prescription, and the co-pay is ten bucks. But, before you go into the store I offer to give you ten dollars, provided you do not spend the money on beer. Anything else, but NOT beer.
You agree and put the ten dollar bill I give you in your left front pocket. You enter the store, and pay for the prescription, careful to use the bill that is now in your left pocket – the one I gave you.
But you also buy a six pack of beer, using the bill you had in your right pocket before you met me.
So, Richard…whose money bought the beer? “Mine” or “yours?” Whose money covered the co-pay? “Mine” or “Yours.”
I’d really appreciate an answer on this, because it is not a trivial metaphor, nor is it an inaccurate one. This notion that dollars donated to parties or candidates can somehow be “pegged” to one kind of expenditure and do not therefore free up other dollars to be expended on something else is simply ludicrous. You couldn’t walk that one past an eight year old.
Yes, I agree that money is fungible.
I would prefer that there were no limit on giving money to a political party. The new law says the higher contribution limit has to be for party headquarters, national convention, or legal expenses. I agree with you that this is a rather silly restriction, because, as you say, if parties get big donations for those things, then they can use their normal funds for other things.
Thank you for your response.