Competition and choice

[Kevin T. Brady <KBrady@BillofRightsInstitute.org>]

I hear a tremendous amount of suggestion to further regulate the electoral process.  Does regulation ever really work?  When the government implements regulation does it ever consider secondary consequences?  Can a government really regulate itself?  Will rules be advantageous to only the two major parties?  Of course, regulation will help the status quo.   That is what is going on right now.  One of the reasons third party candidates cannot get anywhere is because they cannot receive a lot of money from individuals.

Rich individuals can run and spend as much as they want.  Sometimes it works, as in the obscene amount spent by Corzine in New Jersey.  Sometimes it fails, like Huffington in California.  I believe if individual donors can support individual candidates, we would see more competition, and we would have more choices.  Competition brings about choice.  If an individual can finance himself, why can he not finance another?

If contributors had to have their names tied to a particular candidate, would they be willing to offer so much support?  Would the media make heyday out an individual with interests in tobacco, oil, forestry, inter alia?   Would individuals support both parties and continue to hedge their bets?  

Let people support the candidate they choose.  Let them use as much money as they want.  Apply market principles apply to campaigns.  The electorate will decide whom they want.  If a candidate receives a tremendous amount from "big oil" men and women, the electorate will know that from immediate disclosure.  I am sure it will be a campaign issue.  If the electorate rejects big oil, they will not vote for that candidate.  If they do not care about "big oil," they may elect the candidate on other issues. 

Some of the regulation plans seem to assume that the people are too stupid to make their own choice.  Those who seem to advocate regulation, often talk about being fair to the "little guy," or average voter.   Somehow, advocacy of government regulation comes off as paternalistic and almost condescending.  Who will set the rules for the campaigns?  What direction will regulations pull us?  Will increased regulation further entrench a two party system?  Will the two parties move closer together?   Many call for bipartisanship.  Will bipartisanship lead to two faces of one party-- a type DLC/ moderate Republican, ideological coalition?  Will increased regulation reduce other voices?

Throughout history, competition has led to individual freedom.  Competition has led to prosperity and liberty.  Regulation usually leads to monopoly and stagnation.  Why do we what to reduce competition in elections?  Give the people some credit.  Let the people see everything about a candidate?her sources of income, her views, her opponents' impression of her.  Competition will leave us with the best.  It usually does.