Wednesday, 19 September 2007

EFB: Put some chains on them

I've noticed that even the most virulent opponents of the Electoral Finance Bill still allow that caps on election spending are necessary. David Farrar quotes approvingly the unhinged Bomber Bradbury on this point this morning saying he's " all in favour of curbing the excesses of money influence in democracy, a plutocracy is a real fear and is a direct outcome from unrestricted electoral financing rules..."

It's true that when politicians and legislators have almost unlimited power to tax and spend and legislate everything that isn't nailed down, then allowing any special interest group access to the levers of political power that allow them to tax and spend and legislate with such gay abandon is inherently dangerous.

But isn't that an even greater argument that the levers of power should pull so much less weight? That there should be constitutional restrictions not on how much we can spend on our favoured party so it can gain power, but instead on how much parties can do once they have power. Isn't that infinitely more important, and far more supportive of genuine free speech?

As PJ O'Rourke says,
When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.
Isn't that the point in a nutshell? Restrict the range of areas in which legislators can meddle, and you immediately lessen the interest in buying political power.


  1. Ron Paul is polling very well in the united states can you show him some support

  2. Is Ron Paul in favour of anonymous spam?


Say what you mean, and mean what you say.
Construct an argument, not a feud--build a mountain, not a molehill.
Spam will be removed , unless it's been asked for.
(Comment moderation is currently being reluctantly applied...)