On Calls for More Stringent Finance Reform Measures

In recent times there have been calls for more stringent finance reform measures. Such concerns are prompted by fears that our democracy is being corrupted by the activities of persons such as the Koch brothers, George Soros and the like. These calls have mostly come in light of “Citizens v. Federal Election Commission,” which many believe opened the flood gates for corporations to funnel unlimited funds into political campaigns. At the heart of the issue is the belief that large monetary donations to public campaigns destroy democratic institutions.

The donation of money to a political campaign is merely the physical manifestation of an idea just as paint on canvas is for the artist or notes for the musician. If an individual decides that he has neither the qualifications for office nor the will to run a campaign his donation to others who can gives purpose to his political aspirations. I freely advocate that any and all prohibitions on campaign donations be revealed. Donations by collective groups are the scapegoat used to explain the current state of our political institutions.  The debate about finance reform is a red herring.

There is a much more threatening beast that lurks in the shadow and plots at any moment to rend our democracy.  That is the government itself.  The more power the government has the more it is able to sell in a closed market.  The more the government interferes with individual behavior, especially in the economy, the more prevalent it is for the wealthy to buy candidates to insure policies that benefit themselves.  Is there any doubt that mixing money with politics breeds corruption?  Nowhere is there doubt that fueling a certain form of political system with money creates a savage atmosphere.  

However, it all depends on what form is in play.  If it is the form at the helm of a government that in almost every aspect is involved with individual choice, whether public or personal, there remains little question that finance can and will infiltrate the political process and corrupt it.  If we look at the past century we can easily see that the power of government has increased drastically in all areas.  If we were to limit the power and scope of government with one swift movement of the pen and drastically alter how individuals interact and proscribe behavior we would  prevent any ability to dictate choice.  It would be impossible for money to corrupt entire civil institutions. 

 Government’s ability to employ financial resources and lobbying tactics would be rendered impotent.  Corporate interest in lobbying would decline as government control of the market disappeared.  The private prison industry would stop lobbying Congress for stricter laws governing personal habit.  Creating more prisoners has led to an atmosphere of behavioral inhibition.  The agricultural industry would stop its lobbying for subsidies.  Defense would not remain a stimulus for adventurism.  The right to wage war would be restricted to explicit definitions, war confined to defense of the American homeland from invaders, a situation, if we look at history, has been rare.

Lack of governmental restraint remains symptomatic of the primary threat to any democracy, an absence of commitment and intelligence amongst the electorate.  An ignorant populace is fatal to popular representation.  Democracy cannot function in a society that lacks the critical ability to transcend loyalty to party or personality.  Democracy cannot function in a society that delights in a man’s appearance, his ability to flaunt oral flourish rather than the validity and profundity of actual ideas. 

The Court’s ruling in “Citizens United” struck down restrictions on political spending by corporations and unions. Advertising is expensive.  It remains a province of the few.  Where is the problem?  Are we afraid that voters are so unable to think critically that a candidate’s face on television is the only key to election?  If this is the case money is indeed the problem.  An educated aware populace secures democracy.  Perhaps substantive steps should be taken toward educational reform.  

Bureaucracy thrives on popular apathy.  The creature continues to grow far beyond need or applicability.  One day it may lash out as its handlers are asleep.