Soft Money, Soft Heads: pointless arguments

Throughout the recent round of political campaigns, there was a lot of hubbub and manufactured outrage about campaign finance "reform." Unfortunately, most of the "argument" in support of this was nothing more than overheated emotional rhetoric with no substance. Much of this line of argument revolves around "soft money." Soft money is money used by political parties to buy advertising that favor their candidates. The major complaint revolving around this issue is that people can donate an unlimited amount of money to political parties, whereas contributions to individual candidates are limited. So this method of financing becomes a "loophole" in which big, bad corporations can bribe congressmen to pass laws to kill kittens, spill oil all over monarch butterflies, and steal little kids' lunch money. Or so the argument goes.

Nothing is more detrimental to this line of argument than that old empirical standby, the facts. Not one study has demonstrated that the soft money loophole has caused undue influence on politicians. In fact, there is only one study on this issue. The University of Chicago performed a study on legislators who had announced that they would not run for re-election. Thus, these legislators would presumably not be beholden to anyone and could vote their conscience. The result? Virtually no change in voting patterns. The conclusion of the study was that contributors tend to donate money to politicians who would already vote their way, rather than try to influence politicians opposed to their views. This makes send when you think about it-would Planned Parenthood bother to donate money to Jesse Helms? Of course not-they'll give money to Mr. Helms' opposition.

The main emotional quotient driving this so-called reform movement is fear of the power of "big corporations." Ralph Nader, for example, when not making millions on his investments in big corporations, is constantly decrying their power. Most other supporters of "reform" sing the same tune. But what power, exactly, do corporations have? It's not like Kellogg's sends squads of soldiers over to people's houses to make them buy Frosted Flakes. Corporations are just businesses, and they have to satisfy consumer demand in order to remain in business. History is filled with the remains of dead corporations who were unable to adapt to the times. Moreover, despite the inflated rhetoric of self-styled progressives, the fact of the matter is that even in the business sector, the influence of big corporations is declining. For example, the biggest corporations-the Fortune 500, employ only about 10% of the population, which is down from 16% in 1980. Similarly, their share of total corporate assets has declined from 16.5% to about 12%, and most significantly, their share of total economic output has declined from its 1980 high of 60% to about 35% today. This clearly indicates that corporate "power" is actually on the decline. The de-regulatory and tax decreases of the Reagan years that continued through the Clinton administration have spurred entrepreneurship and encouraged self-employment and the formation of new businesses. Combine this with advances in technology that have dramatically lowered barriers of entry to new competitors, and you arrive at our current economy-a place where the power and influence of big companies is on the decline.

Aside from the fact that campaign finance "reform" is unnecessary, it also poses a disturbing threat to free speech. If a political party wishes to buy advertising for its candidate, and the government stops that, how is that not censorship? Like it or not, donating to a candidate is an expression of political opinion. So are advertisements from individuals and groups who buy advertisements that favor or disfavor a particular candidate. As the "reform" train chugs along, restrictions on political speech will continue. This will curtail political debate and pose grave harm to the future of American democracy.

Though well intentioned, the purveyors of campaign-finance reform base their reasoning on emotion, not the facts. There is simply no evidence to suggest that soft money is harmful-in fact, the only study on the issue demonstrates the contrary. Moreover, it is based on a notion of corporate "power" unfounded by the facts. And most chilling of all, if the "reformers" have their way, it could lead to substantial curtailments in political debate and speech in America.