You're reading a post titled “George Soros is a dictator.” from the archives of Big Contrarian. It was originally published on June 21st, 2008 at 12:42 PM. If you enjoy it, you should subscribe to this site’s RSS feed, or its Twitter page.

Reihan Salam, on the “inequality” of campaign finance donation limits:

If George Soros or Michael Bloomberg wrote Obama a check for $500 million, he’d surely continue to build his more sustainable network of small donors. He’d also be able to buy hours of time on primetime network television to share his vision of America’s future. Or he could literally put a chicken in every pot, or create a series of Obama-themed daycare centers across the country, winning the support of stressed-out parents everywhere.

Salam’s point is not a new one. “Is money equal to speech” is an old question in politics and law. While there are numerous arguments for limiting donations, the primary argument for not boils down to individual liberty. It is deemed oppressive that a billionaire can not donate a vast sum to a political candidate of his choosing.

This misses the point of the law. The law is aimed to ensuring that candidates are not beholden to any large entities at the expense of the people they govern. If George Soros wrote you a check for $500 million, and he really wanted you to make clubbing baby seals legal, you’d probably find a way. By limiting the maximum contribution, you effectively democratize the process.

Justice Stephen Breyer said it a good deal better than I can:

To focus upon the First Amendment’s relation to the Constitution’s democratic objective is helpful because the campaign laws seek to further a similar objective. They seek to democratize the influence that money can bring to bear upon the electoral process, thereby building public confidence in that process, broadening the base of a candidate’s meaningful financial support, and encouraging greater public participation. Ultimately, they seek thereby to maintain the integrity of the political process - a process that itself translates political speech into governmental action. Insofar as they achieve these objectives, those laws, despite the limits they impose, will help to further the kind of open public political discussion that the First Amendment seeks to sustain, both as an end and as a means of achieving a workable democracy.

↬