The Folly of Public Campaign Funding

National Review Online ^ | March 28, 2011 | John R. Lott Jr.

[JohnRLott]

Should political candidates get their campaign costs covered by the government? What if a candidate chooses not to take taxpayer money? And should taxpayers give more money to his opponent if a candidate raises more money for his campaign? Those are the questions that the Supreme Court is discussing today as they hear oral arguments in McComish v. Bennett, a case challenging Arizona’s taxpayer-funding for political campaigns.

Supporters claim that such public financing encourages political debate. They contend that giving everyone the same amount of money ensures all points of view will be heard. The argument seems simple enough, but empirical research indicates just the contrary, that such restrictions actually entrench incumbents and reduce competition.

Arizona’s law essentially imposes campaign spending limits. The Constitution won’t let the governments ban candidates from raising money, so Arizona tries a less direct approach . . .

[Ferndale]

I would encourage those interested to check out this link at Cato for a very interesting discussion of this dispute (argued before SCOTUS today):

http://feeds.cato.org/~r/CatoEventPodcasts/~5/NNZ3dm5wevE/cpfa-03-22-11.mp3