Former federal government economist Alan L Moss
has posted a guest column for the New Jersey Star-Ledger calling for a
constitutional amendment to outlaw private campaign financing. His motive is
blatantly political: It’s “How we
can avoid another Trump-type presidency.”
But deeper than that, he wants to “provide candidates with
freedom from the need to raise enormous amounts of money”:
The Founding Fathers visualized an American republic that would
provide enlightened respect for common citizens and require dedication,
honesty, and virtue in its elected representatives. The ills that frustrate
today’s voters are the result of the unchecked power of special interests and
lobbyists, and their interaction with our method of campaign financing.
Political representatives who serve special interests instead of the greater
good of the nation are the predictable consequence of the absence of countervailing
power to offset the impact of factions and their massive resources.
To rectify this dilemma, we must open the door to finance-free
politics so our elected representatives return their focus to legislation and
the quest to serve the public. To free our representatives to do what’s right,
we must eliminate the corrupting influence of private campaign contributions. A
constitutional amendment to restrict funding for all federal campaigns to
resources administered by a federal government agency could provide
candidates with freedom from the need to raise enormous amounts of money.
My emphasis. It’s shocking that he would think
the Founding Fathers would approve. The Founders clearly believed that “do
what’s right” should be up to the people as individuals engaging through
intellectual freedom. That’s what the First Amendment is all about. That’s the
Amendment Moss would partially repeal. I posted these comments:
Freedom of speech is a
fundamental right, and money is fundamental to the freedom to express that
right. Freedom of speech is not mere freedom of opinion, but freedom to express
one’s opinions to others--as many others as you can reach at your own
expense. Private campaign financing is a key form of free speech, and to
eliminate private financing is to outlaw a crucial means to free speech.
A key way to keep politicians
accountable is private campaign financing. Someone who seeks office must go
hat-in-hand to the citizenry for money. That some candidates can self-finance
is beside the point. It’s their money, and voters still must decide based on
what they say. A lawmaker with “freedom from the need to raise enormous amounts
of money” —his own or others’—is a lawmaker who is free from accountability to
the people he represents.
Politicians wield legalized
force. That’s what legislation is. Law is force. And the people making law
should be accountable to the people they legislate over, not to a federal
government agency that they create, control, and fund with money they taxed
away from the citizens whom they have stripped of choice regarding political
spending.
An Amendment to ban private
campaign financing would let the most dangerous faction, the political class,
monopolize who could run for office. Moss’s narrow personal aim is clear--to
prevent the “mistake” of someone who opposes his political agenda from getting
into office. Far from countering “the impact of factions”—and more ominously—it
would empower victorious factions to stifle opposing factions via the federal
campaign control agency. It would immorally force taxpayers to finance
candidates they wouldn’t otherwise, protect incumbents from challenge, and
partially repeal the First Amendment.
The statists are getting more brazen. They are
now openly declaring that if they lose an election, the people’s individual
liberties must be curtailed.
Related Reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment