Enough Wikipedia. Ron Paul 2015:
It is no coincidence that the only major party nominees to present the most radical challenge to the
bipartisan consensus in recent years, Barry Goldwater and George McGovern, were able to overcome the political establishment's hostility to their campaigns because of the support of a few large donors.
As I found out in 2008 and 2012, that option is no longer available to candidates thanks to federal laws
designed to “improve” the electoral process. The power of the consultant and donor class was on display in the last year’s election, particularly in the Republican primaries. In several instances, candidates favored by the grassroots and small donors were defeated by candidates favored by the D.C.-based consultants and large business interests. This was an acknowledged effort by the consultants and donors to seize control of the electoral process back from the grassroots activists and small donors of the “tea party.”
Looking at the early coverage of the 2016 presidential elections shows the continuing influence of the
large donors. In all this coverage, there is an inordinate focus on which candidates have done the best job of appealing to big donors. The coverage freely admits that these donors are looking for “centrist” candidates who can be counted on to not aggressively challenge current domestic or foreign policies.
Much of the coverage of the early “money primary” discusses how candidates are courting support
from the financial industry, the military-industrial complex, and other businesses that benefit from current monetary and fiscal policies. This is a phenomenon that affects both parties and may explain why free-market Republicans and progressive Democrats routinely violate their principles by supporting corporate welfare that distorts the market (violating the Republicans’ supposed free-market beliefs) for the benefit of the corporate and/or financial elites (violating the progressives’ supposed commitment to
use government power to benefit those at the bottom of the income scale).
One of the most disturbing examples of the current system of campaign finance reform’s failure is how
some politicians are making the passage of unconstitutional legislation banning Internet gambling a priority in order to “get on the good side” of one billionaire donor. Clearly, the system of campaign finance reform has failed to curb the power of large donors and political consultants to shape the electoral, and thus political, process. One explanation for why campaign finance reform laws enhance the power of establishment consultants and large donors, many of whom made their fortunes in industries that benefit from current government policies, is regulatory capture.
Regulatory capture occurs when a regulatory agency ends up serving the interests of the industries they
regulate. One reason this occurs is that the regulated have the time, resources, and incentives to discover and exploit any loopholes in the law to influence the regulations and figure out how to manipulate them for their benefit. This is why every new round of campaign finance reform ends up further empowering the entrenched consultant and donor class. Smaller, independent-minded candidates and businesses promoting new ideas do not have the same ability to do so. Instead, they are often reduced to trying to copy the “professionals’” techniques.
Finally, I wish to address the question of the constitutionality of any campaign finance laws. Th
e First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from making any laws “abridging the freedom of speech.” The right of free speech includes the right to participate in the political process by volunteering for candidates, writing letters to the editor or blogging about politicians and political issues, or donating to campaigns. Federal laws limiting how much an individual can participate in the political process by donating to the candidates of their choice violates the First Amendment just as much as laws limiting the amount of time an individual could spend volunteering for a candidate or the amount of money an individual could spend supporting a political publication or website would.
People are correct to be concerned about the influence of money in politics. However, the solution to
this problem is not to create more unconstitutional regulations limiting the right of people to influence the political process. Instead, the solution is to remove the incentive for powerful special interests to influence and profit from government policy by scaling the government back to its constitutional
limitations. The only way to get money out of politics is to get politics out of money.
Can't say I agree with every single word, but I certainly agree with the conclusion. Maybe this is a case where I'm the one saying, once we get here then we can afford to do that, specifically when we get the politics out of money,
then we can afford to allow a free-for-all. But right now, campaign contributions and PACs are too much like bribes. The difference as I see it (and I can't guarantee my glasses prescription) is you were talking about something that could conceivably affect an economic recovery, and I'm not.
