Your voice isn’t welcome here

Politics is our business, not yours.  Keep out.

That’s the message politicians in Congress and state capitols nationwide have for anyone who wants to join the political fray this election season or any other.  And that’s the real point of so-called campaign finance laws.

Rep. Michael Capuano recently admitted exactly that when defending a campaign finance bill currently before Congress:  “I hope it chills out all — not one side, all sides!  I have no problem whatsoever keeping everybody out.  If I could keep all outside entities out, I would.”

Further evidence comes from a new Institute for Justice report by University of Missouri economist and campaign finance expert Jeffrey Milyo.  Milyo explains the value of political entrepreneurs to the vibrancy of American democracy — and shows how campaign finance laws get in their way.

READ THE REPORT: www.ij.org/keepout

Political entrepreneurs are people who form and grow new political voices and movements.  They provide outside competition that keeps the political establishment on its toes, much as economic entrepreneurs drive innovation and change in the marketplace.

“Whether it is the civil rights movement of the 1960s or today’s Tea Party movement, outsiders in American politics have always played a crucial role in challenging the status quo by pushing new ideas to the fore and inspiring newcomers to run for public office,” writes Milyo.


Just like established interests in the marketplace, political insiders like Capuano (and countless other incumbents) can respond to outside competition in one of two ways:  either adapt or collude with government to regulate competitors out of business.  Business insiders use occupational licensing laws and other barriers to entry to keep upstarts out; political insiders use campaign finance laws.

Milyo examines two types of laws that erect barriers for independent political groups — that is, groups that advocate for or against ballot issues or candidates independent of the candidates’ campaigns: contribution limits and regulatory red tape.

In 22 states, it is illegal to give an independent political group that speaks out about candidates more than a government-set limit.  Such “contribution limits” make it harder for new groups to form.

As David Keating, a long-time political activist and founder of SpeechNow.org, an independent political group that defeated federal contribution limits in court, explains, “When you have just a handful of people who feel strongly about an issue and the rest of the public hasn’t much thought about it yet, it’s hard to round up many small donations. You need a political venture capitalist willing to put in a large amount of seed money and attract other people to the cause.”

Milyo shows that most new independent political groups that sprung up in the 2004 presidential election such as America Coming Together relied on a few very large individual contributions to get started.  These contributions were far larger than federal contribution limits — and than contributions to more established groups with built-in bases of support.

Contribution limits also reduce the resources available for political advocacy.  Milyo estimates that if four political groups active in the 2004 election had not been subject to limits, they might have raised between 53 percent and 599 percent more in individual contributions to spend on their speech.

  • Pingback: Unwrapping the Red Tape | Tea Party Fans

  • Pingback: Unwrapping the Red Tape | RedState

  • johno413

    Surely the original laws had some intent beyond restricting novices and those otherwise employed but politically interested folks. So, in rolling back such laws, how are the other issues addressed? Are they not important after all? I agree that all valid voices should be heard, but a free for all seems just as counterproductive. I am perhaps one of the worst persons to rely on for creative political thought, but the thought of what a fully unregulated outcome looks like seems ugly too. I’m reminded of many Hollywood fiction creations that are set in the future. There is so much public promotion and advertising going on in the futuristic city streets, it just becomes background hum. What if every possible serious AND fringe group were bombarding me? I would learn to tune out the Code Pink, the America is Islamophobic, the Westboro Baptist, the Ban Gay Behavior groups’ messaging and it would all become hum.

    • Les Wes

      Whenever you try to parse the “valid voices” you always end up with someone being the decider. Doesn’t the fact that these repetitive messages become a background hum mean that your internal parser is working just fine and government doesn’t need to intervene. I want access to all the speech out there and I’ll rely on my own BS meeter to discern the “valid voices”.
      BTW, there is only one way to avoid that advertising everywhere future: Stop being affected by advertising. How? By getting educated. How? By hearing dissenting voices. So the “ugly free for all” will first be the fever and then the cure. . .