BrianGarst.com

Single issue organizations often try to piggy-back on the big issues of the day and gain publicity by tying major news items to their agenda.  I can hardly fault them for it, but when they use bad logic in an effort to restrict freedoms, I must call them out.

Members of Congress who noted “no” on health care reform legislation late Saturday night have received $2.3 million more in campaign donations from health insurance interests than those who voted in favor of the legislation to overhaul of the nation’s health care system, according to analysis released by a coalition of campaign reform groups.

“The health care debate shows that our campaign finance system is as much in crisis as our health care system,” said David Donnelly, national campaigns director of Public Campaign Action Fund, the watchdog group that conducted the analysis for the coalition. “As measured in campaign donations, it clearly pays to be against reform and with the health insurance interests.”

There are several problems with this account of their findings. First, the difference in donations for the two sides isn’t all that great. One group got $12.5 and the other closer to $10 million. Yet clearly they want to paint it as nefarious to donate to people opposing PelosiCare, but it’s no problem for those who support it.

Which brings me to my second point. They are wrong to assert that the “vote shows the need to transform our current campaign finance system.” Their idea of transforming campaign finance is to restrict the freedom to financially support politicians on the basis of their views, and they argue this is necessary by inferring, but not substantiating, corruption when it comes to voting on health care reform. But their claim that it “clearly pays to be against reform” misses the point:  it clearly pays to be on either side of the issue.  The $2.3 million difference between being for or against the legislation is minimal compared to the $10+ million difference between have or not having a piece of controversial legislation to vote on in the first place.

Whether they are for or against the particular bills before Congress, both sides are financially better off for having the “debate” at all. The incentive then is not to switch sides for money, but to threaten governmental interference in all manner of issues, and as often as possible, in order to create more anxiety in the private sector. Every additional “crises” that needs “reform” will bring out new stakeholders with buckets full of cash who want to make sure they don’t get shafted in the process.

Restricting donations is not likely to solve anything because both sides – industries who want favorable regulations and politicians who want money with which to seek reelection – are highly motivated to get around any restrictions.  New ways will always emerge for money to get from industry pocket A into Congressional pocket B.

The best solution is not to limit our freedoms, but to limit the powers of Congress. The fewer issues that are within their regulatory purview, the fewer opportunities they have to go around kicking ant mounds in hopes of seeing which deep pockets get stirred up.

campaign finance free speech