Sunday, January 29, 2006
Campaign Contribution Limits – More Power to Rich Newspaper Barons, Less Power to Other Rich Guys
My headline is inspired by today’s editorial in the Bloomington Pantograph endorsing GOP gubernatorial candidate Bill Brady’s idea to impose federal campaign donation limits on Illinois politicians.
What’s would be the effect of limiting individual contributions in Illinois to $2,100 per election?
Probably lots of folks would have preferred such a change in campaign law had been enacted prior to my statewide candidacy, but the point is that imposition of such contribution limits help those media moguls and their managers increase their influence…while decreasing the influence of those who made their money or work somewhere else.
Now, limiting or prohibiting contributions from those who get state business and from businesses like gambling and utilities, whose profits are wholly dependent on state regulations…that’s an entirely different matter. (I remember when those owning race tracks and those holding liquor licenses could not make political contributions.)
What’s would be the effect of limiting individual contributions in Illinois to $2,100 per election?
· It would make those owning and running newspapers and television stations even more powerful than they are today. That’s because only the media would be unlimited in their ability to influence the outcome of campaigns (though editorials and slanted reporting).Other rich guys, like my 2002 supporter, the former technology guy who sold his stock before the market tanked, wouldn’t be able to finance an upstart campaign like my Libertarian Party race for governor.
· The pool of potential candidates would be lessened, because rich guys and girls would have the advantage of being able to spend time campaigning, instead of “dialing for dollars,” as non-rich candidates have to do to be elected to federal office.
Probably lots of folks would have preferred such a change in campaign law had been enacted prior to my statewide candidacy, but the point is that imposition of such contribution limits help those media moguls and their managers increase their influence…while decreasing the influence of those who made their money or work somewhere else.
Now, limiting or prohibiting contributions from those who get state business and from businesses like gambling and utilities, whose profits are wholly dependent on state regulations…that’s an entirely different matter. (I remember when those owning race tracks and those holding liquor licenses could not make political contributions.)
