Through the Broken Window

Totally agree. Campaign Finance "Reform" is a joke. And worse, it's a blatant and unpardonable attack on free speech.
 

Am I the only one worried about a potential increase in rent seeking?

When you say "unlimited contributions from anyone", I hear "increased probability of higher tariffs to protect companies that make big contributions." Or any number of other government perks.

Personally, I think we face a trade-off between freedom of speech and freedom of trade on this issue.
 

Absolutely. My only concern is that throwing money at government is problematic for all of us.

I do not see how it could really be much worse than the current structure though, since they still have to be elected by majority (plurality) vote.
 

I'm all for unlimited contributions. The problem isn't the money, it is the limits on government.
I think it parallels the "Who should vote" issue Bastiat talks about in the Law.
Nathan
 

Travis,

I don't know what the best alternative would be. Like you, I havn't spent much time on the issue.

Maybe Chris might be right. After we weigh all the costs and benefits of each alternative the best solution might be no limits.

But we have to realize that there are potential costs to not having limits.

Framing the issue as being exclusivley about freedom of speech may sound nice, but i don't think it is appropriate.
 

Then don't think about costs or beneifts.

Think about how your "right" to trade freely will more likley be infringed as a result of unlimited campaign contibutions.

Are you REALLY not concerned about rent seeking? explain.
 

Travis,

If you were dictator, you could make all kinds of changes to our laws to make my concerns moot. But that isn't the world we live in.

As Jenna pointed out when I questioned her reasoning behind her support for ANWR drilling (a less than ideal policy to support for a libertarian)-- the choice we face isn't between the government we have on one hand and the ideal goverment we wished we had on the other; our choice only concerns an incremental change in the way THIS government is run.

Now, you really have to ask yourself, do you think the additional reforms you suggest (removing the federal governments to impost trade barriers) will be MORE likley to be accepted a a result of unlimited campagn contributions or LESS likley?

I tend toward the later. Politicians and lobbyists, like everyone else, respond to incentives. If we make it easier for politicans to trade politial favors for campaign contributions, chances are, they will trade MORE favors.

If anything, you've only pointed out an additional unintended consequence of campaign finance reform. Not only will unlimited contributions make it easier for politians to dole out favors, but it will also make it MORE difficult to institute libertarian reforms.

We should all remember that Hazlitt's lesson of unintended consequences didn't just apply to liberal programs of expanding government. Incentives are just as important for libertarian reforms.
 

Dr. Richard Ebeling at FEE was responding to a line of reasoning similar to the discussion here. His comment was that libertarians aren't ready for politics yet.
We are still trying to understand the ideal. Travis and I have been "staring at the sun" - trying to imagine the perfect world. I have told many people that my ideas are completely impractical. Which is convenient because they are also completely unpopular.
Student, it seems you are looking at what is practical - what can actually be done. Which is merely a different perspective on the same issues.
Really, we have two seperate conversations: what SHOULD be, and what COULD be.
For now, I find the should discussion more important because I'm still figuring it out. Maybe later I'll be more interested in the could discussion.
Nathan
 

I think there might be a greater incentive for people to pay attention to where the money is coming from. And in the longer run, politicians would have to be more careful with accepting funds and returning the particular "favor". Now it is pretty much invisible, except for some types of funds above a certain amount.

The short-run may create a great deal of what you are talking about, but I think the long-run would have much the opposite effect.
 

Travis,

Then limiting campaign contributions would seem to fit best with your goal of freeing Americans from the slavery of the state(?).

A system of unlimited contributions would only provide politicans with worth incentives and make instituting further reforms more difficult.

I don't have the same faith that Chris does that simply making things more transparent will solve rent-seeking problems. After all, most of the sources for campaign funds are already disclosed (I *think* it's anything over $200, but i'll have to check). And there are plenty of people already looking at who pays who.

Are these watch-dog groups very effective? I don't know. Ask the sugar lobbey.
 

Travis,

I also miss the connection between convincing people that tariffs are wrong and the proposition of campaign finance reform.

Both might be worthy goals and both might fit together in the way you think things should be, but I don't see how one leads to the other.

The issue before us is whether we should have unlimited contributions or not. And given the fact that most politicians DON'T agree with us that trade restrictions are wrong, I don't feel comfortable removing all the restrictions on campaign contribution.

But hey, it's all in good humor. Besides, you can't tell me my argument isn't fun. :) I used traditional economic and libertarian talking points ("incentives matter" and "big government sucks") to arrive at an argument for government regulation.

Don't tell me I'm the only one that gets a kick out of paradox and uncomfortable conclusions.
 

Travis,

Where is all this tension coming from?

Obviously, I didn’t articulate my question well. So allow me to restate it:

"How will allowing unlimited contributions help you convince politicians to go free trade? If it wont, then what's your point?"

Of course, this question is only relevant if we're still talking about the impacts of campaign finance reform. I think I'm realizing that what we're really talking about is what your ideal government would look like.

But moving along, what makes you think my argument only concerns the short term? My argument states that unlimited contributions will lead to more political favors in the short run and that will make libertarian reforms more difficult to implement in the long run. What am I doing wrong?

True. I am not pretending that a silver-tounged angel will come out of the sky to convince politicians to abandon their statist ways. But should I really make an assumption like that when evaluating a SINGLE policy perscription?

---

Now I am trying keep this mellow. I was even trying to be funny in my last post (trying being the key word I guess). So let's step back.

I think our real problem here is that we're talking about different things. I am talking exclusively about the short and long run impacts of campaign finance reform.

You seem to be talking about what would have to happen for your favored campaigned finance program to work and then calling that the "long run".

It's two discussions worth having, but let's be clear about which topic we're discussing.

So let's cool down and not get emotional over something silly. :)

Besides, If we can't disagree on this blog, then what's the point?
 

Travis,

I know. :) I was busy at work so I didn't have much time to respond.

I think I see what you're driving at. You're saying that you want to pursue a variety of policies to achieve world of total liberty and concessions on any front will only detract from that ultimate goal. Is that right?

Fair enough. My argument was much more modest. I was only trying to describe the implications of a single policy perscription holding everything else constant.

If we want to expand our conversation to cover a wide range of policies then I have to admit that I have no idea what will happen. There would be too many things for me to consider. You yourself said that anything could happen in such a world.

But since anything can happen, I guess we can pretend what will happen is what we want to happen. What's stopping us right?

I wont make any fuss about it. Those types of arguments will win more people over than anything I could ever come up with.

But I will say this...Lost Boys was the best vampire movie of the past 20 years and Jack Bauer will kick your as if you say different. :)
 

Crisis also pushes alot of people towards greater statism, like The Stock Market Crash and Katrina.

How can we convince them that government is not the answer, but the problem.
 

Don't allow them to blame the government in the first place. Their was and is so much government blame over Katrina that it angers me. Since when do governments create hurricanes?

Also, take a few by the hand and show them the wealth waiting to be created by people willing to take risk and responsibility upon themselves. IOW: encourage market entrepreneurship.