Last Thursday I tried to be magnanimous. Of campaign finance regulation proponents, I wrote, “I suppose a reasonable person could blanch at rich people giving money to political causes … if they objected to all super-rich donors.”
My expectation of reciprocity was dashed at the non-reciprocal gambits of the Koch-hating campaign finance regulation advocates. It all really does come down to how they hate having others spend lots of money … against their causes.
Hardly democratic, that. Sorta ‘live and don’t let live.’
But they could (and will) defend themselves. They could say something like this: “We don’t like our billionaires having to give so much either. We’d like to cap our billionaires’ giving, too!”
It’s tough to have to keep up with your opponents’ spending, a pain having to give and give to get what you want and want.
We’d all like to get our way without having to spend time and money. But that doesn’t seem to be the way the world works — everything has a cost.
I sympathize. Economists call the problem of political campaign spending a “Tullock auction,” which sports no rational upper limit on spending, because winners take all.
Still, to bitch about your opponents’ spending but never your own gives away your game.
And we all know what the ultimate progressive game is: tax-funded elections. Tightly controlled, with more and more intrusions into how citizens assemble and cooperate to promote their candidates and causes.
So if the promotion, debate, and decision process is to be government-funded, government-controlled, we might as well call it Socialism and be done with it.
Could such a system be biased, just possibly for the pro-government growth side?
All mysteries solved.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
