SEND ME $100!

There, I wrote it. How many of you just got up, wrote a check and then sat down to write a comment asking me for an address to which to send your check? None of you? Why not?

What if I had put a picture of a comely lady next to my plea? Or hired a famous actor to ask you to send it to me? Would you them be sending me my c-note?

How about if I repeated the plea 100 times? Or 1000? If I put it on a bill board beside the highway? How about if I ran it as an advertisement during CSI? Or the Super Bowl? How many of you would be sending me money?

None. And I know it. Why not?

Because ADVERTISING IS NOT MAGIC!

It is a fact that most people seem to forget, but placing an advertisement does not make anyone believe what you state. Just think about ti for a moment and you will see it clearly. Would you obey an advertisement no matter what it said? Would your family? The people you know? If not, then why do you assume anyone else would?

And even for those who think they alone are rational and everyone else is an irrational fool (a topic I discuss in "The Citizen Dichotomy", "Man's Nature and Government" ,"In A Nutshell" and "The Road to Violence"), I can offer pretty convincing proof that no one is that irrational. Just try this experiment. I am sure you could find pretty cheap nude pictures of Rosie O'Donnell or create a very cheap urine flavored soda, or maybe Hitler action figures. You would certainly be the only one on the market with your unique product. Now, if advertising is that powerful, all you need to do is run enough ads and you will be rich Without competition, you can set your own price and reap the rewards of the magic of advertising.

So, why hasn't anyone done this?

Because ADVERTISING IS NOT MAGIC!

Many, many companies have believed the opposite and come to grief because of it. Advertising, despite the beliefs of many, is not magic. It does not create demand out of thin air or make an undesirable object seem interesting.

Which brings me to my main point. Why do we regulate campaign contributions?

Let us think about this, current campaign laws do not really regulate content, politicians can pretty much continue to promise the moon while never delivering. (And if they did cover content, I would argue that would be even worse.) So, what we have is pretty much a law that says individuals can only give X dollars to a candidate. What is the logic?

Well, the logic is twofold, and both arguments are absurd.

First, the laws supposedly prevent an individual from gaining influence over a candidate by limiting how much he can give. And anyone who believes that probably has already sent me $100. Let's face it, influence over politicians is easily bought, and election laws do nothing to curb that. Look at MoveOn or any of the other 527s. And when money is not funneled through a 527, it is just donated as "soft money" to the party itself, or channeled through dozens of bogus donors. In the worst case, money is not given for election purposes at all, and is instead promised as post-office employment, jobs for friends and family, book deals, or in one of the million other perks that lobbyists offer elected officials.

So, the only real teeth in the election laws are the limits upon advertising spending. And that is why I spent so long on that topic.

Political speech, once considered the preeminent protected speech, is now hemmed in on all sides by regulation. 30, 60, 90 days out from various elections, only the media, politicians themselves and certain other protected groups can officially have an opinion and voice it publicly. Even outside of that window, the amount one can spend, who can spend, and what they can spend it on is carefully delineated by the Solons in DC.

And my question is, what would happen if all this regulation were to cease? What if every politician were free to accept unlimited money and free to spend unlimited sum on advertising? What if every citizen were free to voice his or her opinion on political issues or individual candidates at any time without restriction?

Yes, there may be some gullible people out there who will believe anything, but are they going to be fooled any less by one advertisement versus fifty? And for the rest of us, are we better served by more or less information?

The truth is, as I said above, advertising is not magic.We do not vote for a candidate on the basis of the volume of his advertisements, but the contents. If you want proof, look at the Obama European love fest. During his period of highest exposure, his numbers dropped, while they rose when he went back to less constant coverage. It is not the volume but the content which matters.

And, in fact, we may be better served by more advertising, as it will allow bad candidates to show us more of themselves so we can be even more thoroughly unhappy with them, while the better candidates will be able to get out more of their message as well.

But, perhaps I am missing something. Maybe there is some horrible danger to allowing unfettered political advertising. If so, please let me know.

POSTSCRIPT

Actually, this was inspired by the threats against Humana for voicing their opinion about health care reform. Of course those threats were made using good old fashioned law restricting advertising, not political speech. On the other hand, what I said above applies there as well, if there is no reason to limit political advertising, I can see no reason to limit any advertising. Yes, advertises might lie, but if they do so in a way that constitutes fraud, then prosecute them, we have had laws against fraud for centuries. But outside of fraud, what precisely is the harm in allowing unrestricted advertising? Why does selling goods suddenly remove one's right to free speech? But as that subject will probably arouse more ire than simply doing away with campaign finance reform, I suppose it can wait for another post.

CORRECTION: I realized after I posted that I forgot some links. I have since added them in.