Letters

From the December 2000 issue

(Page 2 of 3)

James V. DeLong's fine review of campaign finance issues ("Free Money," August/September) is marred by including a page from the Republican Party play-book: that we mollify advocates of contribution limits by conceding a new requirement for "full and immediate disclosure over the Internet."

DeLong notes constitutional objections "since anonymity is sometimes important." (There are objections even when anonymity is not important; you have rights even when you don't "need" them.) He addresses them by saying, first, that disclosure is useful to voters. Yes, and to commercial and partisan pitch- men, to politicians assembling dossiers on citizens, and to future adversaries seeking to play guilt by association. If free speech is a right, it cannot depend on a duty of disclosure.

DeLong's other two responses are essentially that this new duty is the price we have to pay to regain part of our liberty. If the GOP cannot advocate one liberty without abandoning another, it is not clear that REASON has to help out.

Moreover, if we are discussing political strategy, we ought to consider whe-ther, after we substitute a mild restriction for a harsh one, the harsh restriction will return, for the same reason it was originally enacted, and we will ultimately be stuck with both. Namely, campaign finance limits will be proposed again following any repeal and will again have irresistible class warfare appeal, whereas it will be impossible to eliminate the Internet disclosure requirement.

DeLong made a great and principled case for absolute liberty; he should have left Faustian bargains to the bumblers in Congress.

Spike
Brentwood, NH

James DeLong replies: I confess to considerable dithering over the disclosure problem, largely for the reasons that Spike states so cogently. Also for a reason he does not mention: There is a real risk of retaliation by incumbents against those who donate to opponents. The "aren't they cute" gloss the press often puts on the maneuverings of politicians obscures the true ruthlessness with which the game is played.

But I still come down on the side of disclosure, as applied to contributions to the candidates. To some extent this is indeed a Faustian bargain-the atmosphere has been so poisoned by demagoguery and nonsense that a price in purity must be paid if the present system is to be destroyed. I'm desperate enough to destroy it that I think the price worth paying.

Also, there is a safety valve for anonymity. Disclosure should apply only to contributions to the candidates and political parties. If attaining reform required that they be extended to direct advocacy I would even agree to that, as long as the term is defined narrowly. Disclosure requirements should not and could not realistically be applied to issue ads.

At a panel discussion of these issues, Ed Crane, president of the Cato Institute, argued that disclosure should be governed by the people. If they regard the source of a candidate's funds as important, they will demand to know and will penalize those who refuse to answer. If voters do not regard this as important information, then so be it.

I take it Spike would agree with this position, and, really, I would agree that it represents the promised land. But as Virginia Postrel pointed out in these pages a few months ago ("Impure Thoughts," August/September), insisting on the best can kill efforts to obtain the better. On the campaign finance issue, for now I would settle for the better, or at least for forestalling the destructive forces that would make things still worse.

Utopian Crackpots

I can appreciate Tom Peyser's debunking of most utopian planners, Edward Bellamy in particular ("Looking Back at Looking Backward," August/September). However, I take issue with his aside that implied Henry George was a crackpot.

George was nothing of the sort. He was well versed in the writings of the major classical economists and accepted the principle of a free market economy. His proposal to tax land rent was a means-the only means-to finance government and secure a more equal division of the economic benefits resulting from gifts of nature or the growth of the community. Libertarians may differ with his philosophy, but that does not make him a certifiable nut.

I was quite surprised by Peyser's omission of a Bellamy legacy that is arguably even more pervasive than that of the cult of planning. Bellamy was the major proponent of the daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. This remains a compulsory ritual in most public schools.

Comments

nfl jerseys|11.14.10 @ 9:31PM|#

jkvgufd