Americans Seeking Reform

 

An Evaluation of Campaign Finance Reform

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Daniel Henage

October 15, 2001

Introduction to American Politics

Professor Ward Elliott

Introduction: Americans Seeking Reform

 

Sixty-six percent of Americans support stricter laws controlling the way political campaigns can raise and spend money.  Both Democrats and Republicans agree that their respective party nominees are chosen by contributors more than by party voters.  When Americans were asked about “Political Contributions having too much influence on elections and government policy,” fifty-eight percent believed it was “a serious problem,” while another thirty-one percent saw it as “somewhat of a problem.” Despite these statistics showing a general belief that the system is corrupt, Americans do not appear to be very concerned about campaign finance, rating it last as an issue they would like to see the federal government address or hear White House Candidates talk about.[1]  So why do most Americans, who view "the system" as corrupt and see campaign finance as a major problem, continually place it at the bottom of their priority list, no matter how the question is asked?  Perhaps this is due to the assumption that there is corruption, but a lack of proof.  In other words, though Americans find it reasonable to assume that the system is corrupt, they fail to find exactly where.[2]  In fact, “studies have consistently found little or no connection between campaign contributions and legislative action.”[3]

 

I agree with the majority that there should be campaign finance regulation.  The question lies in what kind and to what degree.  In a similar sense, I'm sure that even the most devout National Rifle Association members would agree that there should be gun control.  Perhaps they would prefer much less stringent controls, but most would probably agree that automatic weapons should not be sold in local shopping centers to kids of all ages.  Again, the question lies in what type of regulations and to what degree.  This essay will explore the history of various types of campaign finance reform and discuss their constitutionality.  The efficiency of existing regulations will be evaluated to determine the optimal degree and type of reform we should have today.

 

 

Regulation of the Past and Present

 

Campaign finance regulations were unheard of until recently.  Although a few laws were passed at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century, they were of little consequence and never really took hold.[4]

 

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 was “the first time in history [that] Congress had passed a law requiring citizens to register with the government in order to criticize its office holders.”[5]  As a result of this Act, Margaret McIntyre, “a middle-class, suburban housewife” had to face six years of litigation after handing out a few fliers in the name of “Concerned Parents and Taxpayers” to urge voting against a tax.  If she had tried to persuade others to vote for or against a candidate, she would have lost the litigation.[6]

 

Under amendments made in 1974 the Federal Election Commission was created as an independent body: “to ensure compliance with the campaign finance laws.”[7]  The new laws set forth were challenged in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) in which the Supreme Court held that it was constitutional to prevent large contributions which “might have the potential to lead to quid-quo-pro corruption,” but that “spending money poses no danger of trading favors or votes for campaign cash - only the act of raising money does so.”[8]  Amendments in 1976 and 1979 reflected the Supreme Court’s ruling by repealing expenditure limits and “including provisions that simplified reporting requirements, encouraged party activity at State and local levels and increased the public funding grants for Presidential nominating conventions.”  Minor amendments were adopted over the next decade.[9]

 

The campaign finance laws existing today emerged largely as a result of the Acts passed in the 1970s and the Supreme Court's rulings on the constitutionality of these laws.  No individual can contribute more than $1,000 to a candidate in a federal election or more than $20,000 in donations to political parties.  No group, no matter how many people it represents, can contribute more than $5,000 to a candidate in a federal election or $15,000 to political parties per year.[10]  Direct corporate and union contributions are banned.  An independent government agency was put in place to prosecute violators.[11]

 

Political candidates may contribute unlimited amounts of their own money to their campaign unless they voluntarily waive that right in order to be publicly funded.  The court upheld public financing of Presidential elections, but non-voluntary spending limits by candidates have been deemed unconstitutional.[12]  James Bopp Jr. explains, “Individuals and organizations also have an absolute First Amendment right to spend an unlimited amount of their own money expressly advocating the election or defeat of particular candidates so long as there is no coordination between the individual or organization and the candidates.”[13]

 

Soft money contributions were permitted in unlimited amounts after Amendments made by Congress in 1979.  Contributions of this type include the money used for grassroots party-building activities, such as “buttons, bumper stickers, brochures, posters, local offices, yard signs, voter registration, and get-out-the-vote drives.”[14]

 

Now we turn to examine each of the four proposed reform measures: (1) contribution limits; (2) spending limits; (3) disclosure of contributors’ names and affiliations; and (4) public financing.  First, we will take a look at Contribution Limits.

 

Contribution Limits

 

The Supreme Court held that it was constitutional to prevent large contributions that might lead to quid-quo-pro corruption.[15]  Notice that the Supreme Court agrees that prevention of corruption merits justification to break the First Amendment, but an attempt to equalize all candidates does not.

 

Those who approve of contribution limits explain that it puts politicians on more equal ground, but fail to recognize that this is not a constitutional right.[16]  Reformists hope to guarantee that the candidate with the largest budget won’t win by “buying” votes.  Although it is true that limits of any kind inhibit the ability of a candidate to communicate his or her ideas effectively, this by no means makes the playing field more equal.  It only inhibits those who have strong financial support, comparatively enhancing the position of their opponents.  Limiting contributions to $1,000 voids the freedom to uphold those with similar beliefs, and many citizens find themselves unable to contribute.

 

Reformists also claim that contribution limits allow candidates to not worry about money and fundraising as much.[17]  On the surface this may seem true, but it is flawed.  Costs of advertising for campaigns are rising and so campaigns need more funding.  In Unfree Speech, Bradley Smith notes that if the individual contribution limit were lowered to $100, $10, or even $5 as some reformers hope, then the required time spent in fundraising would have to increase significantly.  Ironically, this would most likely trigger the cry for even more bans and limits.[18]  Regulations thus far have only “helped to renew the phenomenon of the ‘millionaire candidate.’”[19]

 

History has shown us that contribution limits have been poorly implemented.  Limits have not been readjusted for inflation or the increased costs of campaigning.  Costs rose sharply once television ads began: in mass communication for congressional campaigns, one-half to three-fourths of the budget is consumed.[20]  The costs of “paper, postage, and media advertising have risen faster than general inflation.”[21]  Finally, the cost incurred through hiring trained lawyers and accountants for litigation and compliance with complicated campaign finance reform laws consumed another ten percent of budgets in 1992.[22]  It is impossible to set an exact amount that is fair or necessary to run a campaign, works well in all cases, and is flexible over time.

 

 

Spending Limits

 

Little need be said about spending limits because much of the same issues with contribution limits apply here as well.  The Supreme Court agreed in Buckley v. Valeo that such limits are unconstitutional due to the fact that there is no risk for quid-quo-pro corruption in spending money.  Also, similar to contribution limits, it is difficult to set an exact dollar amount.

 

Spending limits could potentially have one advantage.  Spending limits without contribution limits would allow candidates to raise money from more diverse sources, such as a few wealthy constituents rather than many poor ones, allowing more time for campaigning instead of fundraising.

 

 

Disclosure of Contributors’ Names and Affiliations

 

Disclosure is potentially very beneficial in overcoming corruption because it allows voters to see where the candidates are getting their funding.  In 1975, David Adamany and George Agree wrote that money is more difficult to trace than other forms of political influence.[23]  Smith explains that this should be easily solved by disclosure.[24]

 

A problem with mandatory disclosure arises when minorities are afraid to contribute.  For example, if an individual is afraid of being persecuted for being gay, by forcing him to disclose his contributions to a Gay and Lesbian political party, he may not feel free to contribute.  In addition, employees will be afraid to contribute to a party opposed by their organization and may even feel obligated to contribute against their party of preference.[25]

 

Although some argue that requiring full disclosure may violate our rights, the Supreme Court has held that disclosure requirements are constitutional.[26]  Full disclosure gives voters the power to decide for themselves when corruption exists by monitoring the actions of politicians.  The more useful information voters have, the more they are equipped to make educated decisions.

 

Public Financing

 

In Buckley v. Valeo, “the Court upheld the constitutionality of…public financing of Presidential campaigns through a voluntary income tax checkoff. The Court determined that the appellants' claim that Congress violated the First Amendment in not allowing taxpayers to earmark their $1.00 checkoff to any candidate or party of their choice was not sufficient to invalidate the law.”[27]

 

Some find government funding to be attractive because, through adequate funding, it can virtually eliminate monetary advantages and “free officeholders to ignore the wishes of…donors.”[28]  However, because public financing puts incumbents and challengers on equal financial ground, incumbents are greatly advantaged due to established media support and public following.  Either by providing adequate funds to run efficient campaigns or allowing candidates to raise money freely without limits, challengers and those with new ideas would have a better chance when facing an incumbent.

 

Annelise Anderson of the Hoover Institute estimates the cost of running a reasonable presidential campaign to be $600 million, yet less than $75 million is currently provided.[29]  Smith argues that one of the serious problems with public financing is that the government is always too fluid or too static – there does not seem to be a happy middle ground.[30]  According to Public Campaign, a group advocating finance reform, the level of public support necessary to obtain public financing ”must be high enough to screen out frivolous candidates who are unable to demonstrate a threshold level of support.  At the same time, it must be low enough so as not to present a barrier to serious challengers.”[31]  This in and of itself presents a serious problem, and certainly these two objectives overlap in many cases.

 

Why not let those who wish to contribute to a specific candidate do so?  If the government did not supply funding, then a candidate able to obtain funding from constituents would indicate a message valued by others.  We must not forget that “public funding places demands on the public purse.”[32]

 

 

Evaluating Our System

 

Due to regulations over the past three decades, beneficial disclosure requirements have been set forth, and we have seen an increased awareness of the importance of money in campaigns.  However, most people agree that the current system is in a state of corruption.  Whatever we are doing is not quite working.  Smith has shown us that regulation has, for the most part, been ineffective and actually caused even more problems.[33]

 

Implementation of new regulations has only channeled the flow of money down other paths that have ultimately proved to be ineffective.  The decrease in money available for direct campaigning has resulted in augmented spending on “issue ads” and negative campaigning.[34]  It is especially difficult for challengers to win races against incumbents.  With a limited amount of money, it is more efficient for a challenger to point out the flaws of an incumbent than to promote the challenger’s own ideas.

 

Regulations have also decreased the ability of candidates to set their own agenda and maintain control of their campaign strategies.  Smith proposes that the decrease in public confidence in the government and decrease of contributions to campaigns, from 30% in the early 1980s just after the laws were passed to barely 10% today, are a result of campaign finance laws.[35]

 

Furthermore, it is almost impossible to run a campaign without a lawyer, and litigation has become a major campaign tactic.  Ordinary citizens unfamiliar with the complicated laws are taken to court for creating leaflets and handouts.  “Retirees with no legal experience [find] themselves in violation of federal law for writing checks to support the political candidates of their choice.”[36]  Reform thus far has only worsened the problems and when the reformists see the system in its degraded state they demand even more reform.

 

Those who demand reform to prevent other politicians from being biased by “special interests” are often themselves a victim of such biases.  What is one of the only types of legislation that legislators make laws on that directly effects their own future employment?  Campaign finance regulation!  A 1997 proposed finance reform law would have set a spending threshold at $600,000, which is the amount at which competitors begin to become challenging.  In the previous election, 40% of challengers who had spent more than $600,000 won, while only 3% who had spent less won.  This regulation would have proved an invaluable advantage to incumbents who already have the support of the media and name recognition.[37]  In Senate campaigns of 1994 and 1996 elections, every challenger who spent less than a cap proposed by incumbents lost, while every incumbent who spent less won.[38]

 

Most people believe that it is common sense that, by allowing large campaign contributions, the rich are favored over the poor.  Smith explains how regulations have “complicated provisions that increase administrative costs and can hamper grassroots candidacies.”[39]  The web spun by campaign finance regulations has become so confusing that candidates with resources and skills to wade through litigation and comply with complicated laws have the best chance of survival, while the grassroots activists are left behind, tangled up in litigation.  Furthermore, Smith explains that regulations have only given more power to “the wealthy and upper middle class at the expense of the working class,” because, due to contribution limits, the few wealthy sympathizers that do exist have lost their means to contribute, leaving only the majority of the upper class with significant funds available for donation.[40]

 

Although Democrats typically welcome finance reform more than Republicans, both parties have members seeking (and opposing) campaign finance regulations.  Occasionally, parties use reform regulations as a weapon to strike down the power of their opponent.  For example, Republicans passed the Smith-Connally Act to ban spending by labor unions, which typically are supportive of the Democratic Party.  The surprising result was the formation of political action committees, or PACs, which allowed the unions to become more united, increase their contributions indirectly, and become more politically involved.[41]

 

As we can see, many regulations on campaign finance reform have been made with “special interests” in mind, and incumbents have benefited most of all.  Incumbents are better suited to raise money from many small contributors because they already have a large following, an established and experienced campaign, and databases of past contributors and constituents.[42]  “In order to have a fundamentally equal playing field there would have to be reform against interests of power holders,” agrees Dana Ward, political science professor of Pitzer College.  “The winners [in today’s reform are the] incumbents.  I don’t foresee any rational actor willing to provide necessary resources for challengers.”[43]  Reformers have demonstrated their inability to regulate efficiently and in a responsible way.  Perhaps it is time to try something different.[44]

 

 

Money and Other Campaign Assets

 

To continue our investigation into campaign finance reform, we must first clearly define the very element of which we speak: money.  Smith explains: “money is the medium through which the labor one puts forth and the talents one possesses are stored and transformed into those goods and services one desires but lacks the talent to produce.  Money, then, is the single most important means by which people who lack talents with direct value in the political arena, such as the production of advertising, writing, campaign organization, speaking, and the like, can participate in politics beyond voting.  This would, on its face, seem to be a positive thing.”[45]

 

Much of the controversy around campaign finance regulations stems from the way people feel when money is mentioned, and for many it carries a negative connotation.  It has a bad reputation as “the root of all evil,” but this saying itself is actually a misquotation of the Bible.[46]  There is a common complaint that although all men are created equal, “some are more equal than others.”[47]  This is very true if it means that some possess attributes, skills, and resources that make them potentially better off than others, including money.  There are many things we consider to be positive attributes: intelligence, good looks, charisma, birth in a free country or to a well-to-do family, and physical prowess, to name a few.  One's lack of any of these qualities should not trigger the passing of laws determined to make men equal, especially if the proposed method to reach equality is to tear down those who are more fortunate.

 

Saying that “we are all created equal” clearly does not mean that we all possess the same skills and resources.  In a political sense, it means that we are treated equally by the government.  That is, we are not discriminated against on a basis of race, sex, wealth status, national origin, speaking ability, good looks, etc.  It does not follow that others are not biased in the polls about such factors.  If there were no campaigning allowing candidates to have an advantage over their opponents, we would be unable to select the candidate of our choice based on their public speaking skills, leadership skills, morality, or character.  In other words, we may as well choose our government at random and our debate over campaign finance reform would end right here.  Lillian R. BeVier notices: “If being a ‘political equal’ means that one cannot legitimately attempt to acquire or exercise political influence, what reason would there be to engage in political deliberation?”[48] 

 

As we have shown, incumbents who already have a following and name recognition stand to benefit from restricting contributions.  Candidates with supportive media receive substantial free publicity while others benefit from holding beliefs popular in academic circles, where thousands of professors and students with writing skills and free time can contribute their resources.  Other assets valuable to a candidate might include friends in high places, easy-to-understand and popular positions on issues, or a fractured opposition.[49]  Constituents might be well known, have free time, or have the ability to write law review articles.[50]  Why should any one thing, such as money, be singled out and not permitted?  How much influence is too much?  What kinds of influence are unfair?  Is life fair?  We rarely see attempts to restrict any of these other assets.

 

“Banning private monetary contributions would, in effect, turn politics into a barter system,” Smith explains, “with everyone excluded who does not possess attributes that can be directly bartered into political access and influence.”[51]  Monetary restrictions cause us to wonder why the skilled writer or speaker may transfer his or her talents to a candidate of choice, while the successful businessman cannot.[52]  These restrictions only harm one group, leaving the other (usually incumbents) with an unnatural advantage.

 

 

Constitutional Rights and Regulation of Monetary Gifts

 

To determine if contribution limits are a violation of our freedom to speak, we must first decide whether or not monetary gifts constitute a form of speech.  The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.”

 

Any effective form of speech costs money, plain and simple.  “Without campaign spending, voters’ information is limited to what they can get through the media.”[53]  Whether one is part of a manufacturing firm advertising a product to potential consumers, or a candidate trying to communicate beliefs and convictions to potential voters, a lot of money will be needed to reach any reasonable number of people.  It is expensive, especially these days, to run an efficient campaign.  And if one is a challenger, he or she will need even more money.

 

Professor Ward claims, “The idea that the spending of money is equivalent to speech just boggles the mind…this whole foundation that they are the same is built on a house of cards.”[54]  Nonetheless, the Supreme Court explained that although “limiting corruption” has a higher priority than maintaining constitutional rights in campaign contributions,[55] spending limits are “unconstitutional and impermissibly [burden] the right of free expression under the First Amendment.”[56]  According to Smith, “few have argued that a gift of money is not protected by the First Amendment, at least when given for political purposes.”[57]  If spending is not a form of speech, the government could easily censor movies or the internet, for example, by banning expenditures on the development of these means of communication.[58]  Why permit the government to indirectly hinder a candidate trying to communicate with voters?

 

Others claim, “The Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equality overpowers First Amendment claims of free speech.”[59]  But Smith points out that both the First and Fourteenth Amendment “are worded in the negative…as a limit on government power, not a grant of power.”[60]  So, although the use of money for campaign purposes may cause some to feel that “equal protection” by the Fourteenth Amendment should be invoked through government regulation, they fail to realize that the protection stated therein does not come from a government that continually passes laws to equalize all Americans, rather it is the protection against a government that would do so.

 

“The notion that an individual is protected when spending $3,000 to argue political views directly, but not when contributing the same amount to the candidate to promote those views, is based on the notion that ‘proxy’ speech is entitled to less protection than direct speech.”  Smith continues to explain that individuals often give money “precisely because it enhances the impact and value of their desired message.”  Additionally, “combining financial resources with others allows for far more effective communication.”[61]  Inhibiting proxy speech reduces the efficiency of the political system by requiring those with an entrepreneurial talent to also have adequate political skills needed to present a message themselves before the public.  This crushes cooperation efforts among individuals that do not have both financial and political skills, but have one or the other.

 

Current campaign finance regulations have produced some rather strange results.  For example, publishing corporations may devote substantial resources to supporting or opposing a candidate while a nonpublishing corporation cannot.  Leo Smith faced legislation after making a web page to promote a particular candidate.  Had he made the web page as a publishing corporation seeking profit, litigation would not have occurred.[62]

 

People vote with differing levels of conviction: some barely make it to the polls to vote and others vote unsure that they have made the best decision.  But those who are more convinced often put forth extra effort by writing letters, promoting their party among friends and acquaintances, or by flaunting buttons, bumper stickers, and signs thrust in their lawns.  This brings us again to ask why those who are unable to contribute in these ways cannot do so with money?  Why is a constituent permitted to donate a month of his or her life helping the campaign of the candidate of his or her choice, but not a month’s wages?  In ruling on Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court said, "the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment."[63]

 

In every other way, those who care the most are often able to persuade others to vote with them.  Not only is it their right to do so, but they also increase the awareness of the public and foster discussion, benefiting us all.  When it comes down to it, a vote is a vote.  We vote at the ballot box, not with our wallets or speeches.[64]  Whether cast by rich or poor, white or black, men or women, educated or less educated, politically active or politically inactive, those who are more keenly aware of what is happening in politics have the opportunity to attempt to persuade others.  A rich elderly man, who has lost his quick tongue and is unable to get out much due to illness, and otherwise unable to make any other kind of substantial contribution to the promotion of those he wishes to see in office, is limited in contributing his money for the cause and leaders in which he believes.  Why can any resource whatsoever be used to persuade others, except contributing more than $1,000 to the candidate?  Money is “the only real mechanism for millions of Americans to participate in the political system.”[65]  That which is most efficient has been limited in its use.

 

 

Goals of Campaign Finance Regulation

 

In order to develop a perfect system of regulation, we must first set forth the goals we intend to meet.  First, we must maintain our constitutional rights.  The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech," but we do find exceptions in our society when it comes to obscenity, libel, symbolic speech, and advertising.[66]  Somehow we have found ourselves in a day where there is “greater constitutional protection to internet pornography…than to internet political speech.”[67]

 

The primary reason named by many reformists, such as George Priest of The Bradley Lecture Series, to increase campaign finance regulation is to limit corruption.[68]  There is, however, little evidence to make us believe that corruption is indeed limited by these laws, and the “corruption” they usually speak of involves the politician being influenced by contributions.  Real corruption, such as bribery, takes a small part in our discussion of campaign finance reform because it is illegal in and of itself.  In fact, there is reason to believe that as the legal flow of money to campaigns is restricted, more money will be passed under the table, resulting in an increase in bribery.[69]  Is it plausible to believe that the officials we elected would vote against their own consciences and be unresponsive to the wishes of their constituents in order to avoid offending a contributor?[70]  Regardless of why our office holders vote the way they do, whether or not we are pleased with their decisions “should ultimately depend on what he does in office rather than on the identity of the contributors.” [71]

 

Some reformists, such as Abbey Sher, co-editor of Dollars and Sense, maintain that an important goal in setting regulation is to give no special advantage to certain groups.[72]  They would do well to turn their attention to incumbents who have inherent advantages as well as other unnatural ones due to today’s laws.  As stated before, it would be impossible to place all candidates on equal ground, and furthermore any attempt to do so, including limiting contributions, would be unconstitutional: the Supreme Court stated that it allowed contribution limits to curtail corruption, not to make candidates equal.  Special advantages already exist; the government should not create more of them by restricting financial contributions.

 

Regulations should allow new ideas and candidates with beneficial messages to be heard. It seems best to keep the government away from deciding what is “beneficial” in regulating this area.  We should allow new candidates and ideas to emerge naturally.  We want an adequate quantity of useful information available to voters.  Expenditures by some candidates shouldn’t inhibit others: “when certain points of view are not heard, the problem is usually that those viewpoints are not being communicated effectively, not that other views are being communicated.”[73]

 

The possibility of government funding leads us to yet another goal: to eliminate, minimize, or make an acceptable level of burden on the taxpayers to fund campaigns.  Government funding may be doomed to never function because citizens would not permit the large sum of tax money necessary to fully finance campaigns to be used in this way.  Unfortunately, by using smaller funding levels, incumbents are given the advantage.  Smith suggests that public financing requires the system to be more flexible.[74]  Perhaps it is best to eliminate government funding altogether.  Also, by simplifying or eliminating complex campaign finance laws, we could reduce the costs involved in monitoring required by government agencies.

 

Finally, many people would like to see regulations limit the amount of time required by candidates to campaign and face litigation.  Simplified laws would allow inexperienced campaigners to better compete.  As explained above, to limit time required by candidates in fundraising we could eliminate contribution limits to allow them to receive adequate funding from a few large contributors instead of many smaller ones.

 

I propose that it is impossible to meet all of these goals at once.  However, it appears that reduced regulation would meet most of them.

 

 

Conclusion: The Reform We Need

 

Complete disclosure should constitute the extent of campaign finance reform.  The small marginal cost of having to disclose contributions is of little consequence when compared to the benefits.  Even those with ill-founded motives to persuade a legislator to vote a certain way will be brought to the light through disclosure.  Why not let the people decide for themselves on a case-by-case basis if corruption exists?[75]  Even suspicious acts by legislators will be reflected in the polls.

 

If we agree to contributions being a form of speech, without a constitutional amendment that allows contribution limits and other forms of regulation, there is nothing that legally can or should be done about regulating campaign finance other than complete disclosure.  What would be the result of creating such a constitutional amendment?  Have we not already seen the disorder caused by this process?  Even if contributions are not a protected form of speech, I believe that the system would be better off without contribution limits.  Smith shows time and again the poor results of restricting campaign contributions.[76]  Why have we tolerated for the last thirty years laws that suppress the rights of people and organizations to speak about political matters?  We have moved from “no taxation without representation” to depriving the right of representation if there is a possible impending taxation.[77]

 

The term “special interests” has been made to carry a negative connotation.  Do we not all have special interests?  Have we been made to believe that it is unethical to support and seek the election of leaders who meet our beliefs on varying moral, economic, and social topics?

 

Recalling the words of the Supreme Court,

Disclosure requirements deter actual corruption and avoid the appearance of corruption by exposing large contributions and expenditures to the light of publicity.  This disclosure may discourage those who would use money for improper purposes either before or after the election…Mr. Justice Brandeis [has said]: “Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases.  Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.”[78]

 

Some candidate will win each election, and by popular vote alone.  But, if we want these voters to be better informed, and likewise if we want more potential voters to vote, we absolutely cannot restrict candidates’ ability to communicate to the public.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTES