In an age of confused and muddled discussion about American fairness, the notion of impartiality has been rendered immoral. To leave a playing field free of intervention, a formerly popular practice that gives the individual power to pick themselves up or fail, now assumes the form of an inequitable attack on the less-fortunate and less-prosperous.
Take any topical economic issue, be it welfare, taxes or campaign finance, and it most certainly will not remain a discussion of accounting and finances, but instead a dialogue about the inherent unfairness of the American structure. Of course, there permanently rests a place in government to aid and assist the truly less-fortunate (as it should), and though the specifics of state assistance often turn dicey, each and every politician has on varying levels, a bleeding heart, so a policy of compassion remains.
That said, there are issues that must not fall completely under the increasingly generous diameter of the government intervention umbrella. In the interest of the First Amendment, campaign finance is one of them. Since the notable Buckley v. Valeo case, the Supreme Court has recognized the notion that spending money on behalf of a candidate or political party is a form of free speech. The 1976 case and decision struck down provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act that imposed limits on various types of expenditures by or on behalf of candidates for office, thereby limiting governmental reach in campaign finance.
This was a momentous win on the behalf of the American voter, for the process of candidate endorsement via monetary means must remain a form of free speech. It allows advocacy and opposition to politicians via monetary means.
In other terms, rational actors exercise opposition of the travesty that is high-priced guacamole at Chipotle each time they patronize Qdoba, where queso is free of charge. Rational actors also realize queso/guacamole prices and campaign finance are equally important issues. Maybe not, but the notion remains consistent in both situations.
Of course, there are efforts to increase government reach and restriction within economics in politics through campaign finance reform. In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act amended FECA, “restricting contributions by wealthy individuals and corporations to national party committees.”
The bill limited uses of the free speech proxy to support political parties and in turn decreased compromise, shifting parties further apart. One of the bill’s co-heads in the Senate was Wisconsin’s Russ Feingold, who now aims to retake his seat in the 2016 elections.
To be sure, the bill was a clear example of government trying to alter the political playing field, to make the system more “fair.” After all, the Koch brothers have for decades polluted the system with their amoral contributions to Republicans — turning a blind eye to unions and their massive contributions to Democrats is more fun, anyway.
But this attempt to engineer a level playing field doesn’t make things more or less fair, it instead limits free speech in monetary terms. It’s a bit of an oxymoron, really; while normally the state reaches into an individual’s wallet to take their wealth, campaign finance reform uses government to put a clamp on that very wallet.
Campaign finance laws, in the name of fairness, inherently infringe on the most crucial and indispensable American right — free speech. Let’s not let political hacks get in the business of deciding what’s fair and unfair, and maybe we’ll elect a couple less political hacks.
Jake Lubenow is a sophomore majoring in finance and political science.
