home
Which Came First: The Chickens or the Soft Money?
Casey B. Lane, Reason on a Stick
Purveyors of the debate against soft money and market based campaign finance are trying to tell us that money has become too big an influence on politics. Huh?
The misconception that we are being fed is that there was once good, clean politics. Then, due to a lack of restrictions on the people, money got involved and started corrupting the system. Not so-it is a chicken and egg situation.
Money (or at least some means of exchange) has always existed. Politics came along as a way to legitimize the coercion needed to obtain money in an unjust manner.
Two individuals can engage in a peaceful transaction, without politics, when there is a need for the exchange of goods. One party exchanges money, or other resources, in exchange for some type of good or service. Government has nothing of its own to offer for exchange. Therefore, when government desires to make a transaction, there must be a political trade off, or a seizure of the necessary resources, for participation in a transaction.
We all know that politics is not some pure endeavor that exists for the benefit of the citizenry. Politics exists to control money and resources. Money and politics are inseparable. The founding fathers of our country understood this concept, and thus, created the Bill of Rights to protect individual citizens from the unavoidable corruption that would stem from power and influence.
The legislation of campaign finance reform and the regulation of soft money are in direct opposition to the very rights the founding fathers sought to protect.
A Concise Campaign Finance Dictionary: Soft Money-money that is spent by a political party, an organization, or an individual for advertising or advocating a candidate or an issue. Hard money- money that is given directly to a candidate.
A ban or a regulation of soft money is a slap in the face to the Bill of Rights. The first amendment prohibits congress from making any law that abridges the freedom of speech. Making it illegal to spend money on the advocacy of an idea or a candidate doesn't sound very much like freedom.
