In campaign finance cases, one argument often used to try and restrict contributions and expenditures (and support taxpayer financing of campaigns) is the government has a strong interest in taking action because of the appearance of corruption.
For example, with taxpayer financing systems for campaigns, if these systems didn’t exist, there would be special interests giving money to candidates providing the alleged appearance of corruption. Of course, there’s no evidence of corruption or that this “appearance” exists for most people beyond the the anti-free speech advocates who see what they want to see.
There’s so much attention given to private contributions. However, I pose this question for your consideration:
What appears more corrupt: Private individuals and organizations voluntarily contributing money to candidates that they support OR Politicians passing laws to force taxpayers, including the poor, to hand their money over to these same politicians for their personal political use regardless of whether taxpayers vehemently oppose the politicians?
I’m voting for the latter option.
Actually, I don’t think political welfare appears to be corrupt–it is corrupt. If you don’t like private contributions because they “appear” corrupt, they have nothing on political welfare/taxpayer financing systems.
