(click on ads for more details)

Subsidiarity – The Real Campaign Reform

by Theresa Fritz Camoriano

The American people know that something is wrong with our current political system.  We can see that elected officials are not being responsive to the concerns of the people, and we want to do something about it.  Unfortunately, the McCain-Feingold “cure” will only make matters worse.

One of the greatest protections we have against entrenched power is competition.  The easier it is for people to mount a challenge to the established power, giving people a real choice in political campaigns, the better off we are.  Politicians who know that they risk losing their jobs are more likely to be accountable to the voters.  On the other hand, the more we limit the ability of challengers to mount a serious challenge, the more insulated and less responsive the existing powers will be.  Any campaign finance reform which limits the ability of challengers to raise and spend funds, such as McCain-Feingold, only serves to insulate those in power against competition. 

I recall only two people who have mounted a real challenge to the establishment in a presidential election – George McGovern and Ross Perot.  McGovern’s campaign was made possible by large financial contributions from a few wealthy supporters.  While McGovern did not win the election, he did win on his main issue of ending the Viet Nam war.  Unfortunately, his campaign would be illegal now, due to the campaign finance restrictions that were put in place after Watergate.  Perot was able to mount a credible challenge only because he was extremely wealthy and could use his own money.  Incumbents know that very few people can mount such a challenge, so they can do whatever they want with little risk of being voted out of office.

In the most recent presidential campaign, we saw two political insiders, sons of successful politicians, challenging each other.  Thanks to campaign finance restrictions which limit outside competition, we are becoming something of a dual monarchy, with political power being passed down from father to son and from insider to insider both on the Democrat and on the Republican side.  This is not healthy, and we can expect it to continue if the campaign finance restrictions continue or are tightened.

Some people want to force taxpayers or media outlets to subsidize political campaigns, but that is immoral.  Taxpayers should not have money forcibly taken from them to support a candidate whose views they abhor.  Forcing the media to provide free advertising space or time to candidates would be theft.  Furthermore, the decisions as to which candidates would be eligible for such free handouts would be in the hands of the existing entrenched powers, who would certainly manipulate the rules for their own benefit just as the two major parties now manipulate the rules to make it extremely difficult for third party challengers.

So what is the solution to our current problem of elected officials being so unresponsive to the will of the people?  First, we should eliminate the campaign finance restrictions that make it difficult for anyone to mount a challenge.  Allow candidates to gather large sums of money from a few people, as George McGovern did, provided that they reveal the source of the money.  And allow issue advertising to be done by anyone, without limits.

Second, we must consider the real source of the problem.  As Lord Acton said, power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.  The problem with our current system is that government simply has too much power.  When Congress has the ability to cripple or to subsidize a business or to control your lifestyle with the stroke of a pen, it is understandable that people will make a great effort to try to influence the Congress!  No matter how many campaign finance laws are passed, people will try, legally or illegally, to influence legislation that will have so much control over their lives and livelihoods.  Only when the power of the government to harass its enemies and reward its friends is gone can we expect the corruption to be gone. 

If we really want to greatly reduce the corruption and really make government responsive to the people, we must demand a return to a limited government, as required by the U.S. Constitution.  This concept of limited government is not unique to our country’s founders and to the U.S. Constitution; it is also an official tenet of the Catholic Church and other organizations, which espouse the principle of “Subsidiarity”.

The principle of Subsidiarity means that problems should be dealt with at the lowest possible level.  In other words, they should be dealt with first by the immediate and extended family, then by neighbors or local churches or charities, and only then by local governments.  Then, only if the local governments cannot deal with the problem, should they be dealt with by the state, and only if the state cannot handle the problem should it be dealt with by the federal government.  If we followed the principle of subsidiarity,  medical care, education, and workplace safety would never be handled at the federal level, just as they should not be handled at the federal level under our Constitution.  If we demanded that the principle of subsidiarity be applied and if we solved our problems at the lowest possible level, with the least possible use of government force, the government would have far less power and far less opportunity for corruption and abuse.  That would be the kind of reform that really would make a positive difference!