Andrew Norton has a very good new report out on campaign finance reform. It gives an overview of proposed changes to campaign finance legislation, both at the state and federal level, and presents the (correct, in my opinion) case for a relatively unregulated approach to the rules around campaign financing.
The whole report is worth reading, but I want to highlight one small part I thought was interesting. I get the impression that a good number of people think of “campaign finance” and a euphemism for cigar-chomping billionaires playing Anton Aicher with the political system. And it is this kind of thought that elicits a gut reaction in favour of campaign finance reform. Get the money out of politics, and all that. What is overlooked is that a lot of groups have myriad interests they want to see protected: unions, advocacy groups, various other NGOs, etc. So banning “third party” donations affects these groups too, not all of whom are particularly self interested.
Furthermore, of all these special interests the most self interested tend to be large companies and unions — both of which generate income from their own activities. This is important. One of the more popular proposals, endorsed by Barry O’Farrell, is to limit campaign contributions to individuals only. However, due to the aforementioned incomes, the practical effect of this is to further entrench the power of the traditional vested interests over other, often more public minded or ideological, groups.
