The Fallacy of Campaign Finance ReformAt first glance, campaign finance reform looks like a good idea. McCain-Feingold, for instance, regulates campaigns by prohibiting national political parties from accepting soft money contributions from corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals. But are such measures, or any of the numerous and similarly restrictive proposals that have circulated through Washington in recent years, really good for our democracy? |
From inside the book
Results 1-5 of 42
... public officials, have a strong interest in suppressing alternative views so that their own may be more prominent ... Government at Cato during much of my work. Fred also emphasized the importance of First Amendment concerns at a point ...
... Public opinion also lends less support for First Amendment rights than we might like to think, particularly for ... officials and many citizens are expressed in the language of high ideals and noble public purposes. To be sure, those ...
... official story, this alternative focuses on interests and corruption. The interests that threaten the public good, however, are those of public officials, not private actors. Elected officials, not businesses or labor unions, threaten ...
... public officials. As we saw above, reform means “a change for the better; an improvement” and “correction of evils, abuses, and errors.” By getting everyone to talk about campaign finance reform, the reformers win the debates by ...
... public officials may violate natural rights on behalf of a political coalition they represent, thereby augmenting both the power of the officials and the wealth of the members of the coalition. If officials pursue their self-interest in ...
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
Popular passages
References to this book
Compound Democracies: Why the United States and Europe Are Becoming Similar Sergio Fabbrini No preview available - 2007 |
Small Change: Money, Political Parties, and Campaign Finance Reform Raymond J. La Raja Limited preview - 2008 |