Law professor Peter H. Schuck makes the ridiculous suggestion that because the amount of money spent in the 2012 election was considerably less than what Americans spent on cosmetic surgery in 2011, we shouldn't worry about it. Then he notes that campaign spending as a share of the gross domestic product has not risen appreciably for more than a century.
Why should campaign spending be related to economic output?
Schuck cites a study finding that an extra $175,000 in campaign spending increases a candidate's vote tally by a third of a percentage point. Rather than being innocuous, this is actually quite alarming.
Schuck makes several good observations about how incumbency threatens democracy and what might be done about it, but overall his article is a sop to big-money interests in politics.
Dennis J. Aigner
Sure, money won't buy the vote of a regular person, but it sure can buy members of the state legislature or
Profits on gun sales fund the
Wealthy people who make money from investments make sure they don't get taxed at the same rates as wage earners.
Money strangles the implementation of banking reform. And it makes sure that no matter how many floods, fires or hurricanes we have, nothing is done about climate change.
Best of all, money buys donors the ability to hide behind "social welfare" organizations so nobody knows who's doing these evil things.
A large war chest doesn't guarantee victory, as Republican
But what money does allow is for the wealthy to buy the loyalty of politicians. The handful of GOP presidential hopefuls who visited billionaire
Most Americans agree that the latest Supreme Court rulings loosening campaign finance rules were steps in the wrong direction.