The Myth of Campaign Finance Reform

Would any sensible school allow students the right to create the rules of conduct during test-taking?

Would we allow the mob carte-blanche power over the laws on racketeering, murder, and bribery; then expect them to be unbiased and honest laws?

Of course not!

So why do we expect the corrupt, power-hungry, deceptive politicians, who have used every despicable tactic to achieve power, the authority to dictate when, where, and how much election funding a campaign can receive?

Hillary Clinton included campaign finance reform in her Presidential platform, recently. She claimed she would go after “dark” money in politics, possibly even with a constitutional amendment. “Dark” money, being money that is funneled toward political groups, specifically 501(c)4 political action groups, who are not obligated to disclose donors.

Of course it would be expected for her to solely go after right-leaning groups, such as the network of conservative and libertarian organizations funded by the billionaire Koch brothers, while ignoring the plethora of leftist groups funded by George Soros and the like. To top it all off, her proposal comes on the wake of news that the Clinton Foundation received donations from Royalty in several foreign countries, including Saudi Arabia.

So one may wonder, why someone like Hillary Clinton would push for campaign finance reform. This is simply because it gives them the power to draft legislation to benefit the powerful.

McCain-Feingold was a 2002 law that brought many of the election regulations we know today. Ever wonder why you always hear the cheesy, “I’m John Steinsebergemeister and I approve this message,” or “Paid for by Citizens Against the Clubbing of Baby Seals” at the end of every campaign or issue advocacy ad? I introduce to you Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, and Democratic (former) Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. They led this bill that was meant to make you feel better about the people in power, when they make these friendly introductions. It was meant to create the illusion that those in power are looking out for your best interests. It put regulations on how and when businesses could donate to campaigns or political groups, as well.

You may say to yourself, “Hey they are from different parties! That must mean they worked together for the betterment of the American people!” Wrong. Yes, the Democrat and Republican leadership hate each other, but they also recognize they need each other. The one thing they hate more is their power being threatened by an outsider. That is why they create such massive bureaucratic regulations in the system, which only those with massive legal teams and truly understand and stay compliant with the law.

Then you also may say to yourself, “Wait, corporations aren’t people. They shouldn’t be allowed to donate money to campaigns!” First, please put down your Communist Manifesto, and pick up some Road to Serfdom to skim through after finishing this article. Businesses are made of people. So, yeah… Your argument is invalid.

Besides, the elites created the go-around for this with the creation of Super PACs to benefit themselves. But no average Joe would be able to have a fan base to gather the resources for an impactful Super PAC while maintaining an election campaign. This is another way they make it seem like it is easier for more honest, average people to join the political process, when it in fact does the opposite.

Most corporations, especially small businesses, would only support candidates who advocated for less regulation in the marketplace, lower taxes, and more freedom. Definitely agendas that McCain, Feingold, and Clinton hope to avoid.

In the end these promises may make those who are easily swayed, all giddy inside. After all if an average American like Hillary Clinton could run for President… wait. Well, they might think that a campaign finance amendment would threaten mega-donors, and massively funded nationwide campaigns. Did I mention that Hillary 2016 hopes to raise and spend around $2.5 billion? So once again this notion is false.

I haven’t even mentioned the campaign contribution fault in the system. For example, Dinesh D’Souza donated the maximum $2,700 per primary and $2,700 per general election cycle toward one candidate. Then gave money for another couple to donate on their behalf, as well. This resulted him in going to jail. However, there is no limit for contributions to the Clinton Foundation, and there is no limit to how much money Hillary can make during a speech (she has made up to $300,000 per hour). Then to top it all off, there is no contribution cap for Hillary to give toward her own campaign.

In the end, we should just let the free-market decide, as we would anything else. Government regulation in elections for government officials is an oxymoron in itself. Today there is a new awakening of Americans desiring true liberty. Most Americans are sick of the party establishment on both sides and want new, freedom-loving candidates. We aren’t going to get this through John McCain or Hillary Clinton’s bureaucracy. We are only going to get this through paying attention more often than every fourth October and November.

Besides, instead of proposing amendments that regulate the American people’s ability to run for office, we should propose an amendment that would regulate those holding that office already: term limits.



Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s