10 February 2010

Demand-side Campaign Finance Reform

I continue to believe the best way to curb the influence of corporations over politicians is to limit politicians' influence on corporations.
Forbes: Street Talk | Larry Ribstein | Nader's Newest Crusade: Citizens United

Finally, Nader would refuse "subsidies, handouts and bailouts to any company that spends money directly in the electoral arena." Here I'm not only sympathetic, but I'd take it a step further: let's just refuse subsides, handouts and bailouts period. Nader sees corporate speech as a problem because it helps corporations bend the awesome power of government to their will. One way to deal with Nader's problem is to reduce the awesome power of government.
(Via Bainbridge)

Ribstein is responding to a Nader op-ed in the Journal, in which he states "Big Business domination of Washington and state capitals will now intensify. The case of Citizens United portends dire consequences..." As mentioned previously here, Citizens United rolls back the status quo to 1990, when Austin v Michigan Chamber of Commerce was decided. Is Nader actually contending that corporate influence has declined in the last two decades? We're not about to enter some dire new era, we're just going back to the way things were twenty years ago.

No comments:

Post a Comment