Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

Home /  Archives / Search / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar

Did Taxpayer Funding of Governor Patton's Campaigns Make His Administration Less Corrupt?

by Pat Pending

          Kentucky's Governor Paul Patton was the first governor elected under the state's new campaign finance scheme, which was promoted as the way to clean up government.  The argument was that if candidates did not have to sell their souls to the devil to finance their political campaigns, they would not owe any special favors to anyone and therefore would run a clean government.  If that argument had proven to be true, Paul Patton should be the poster boy for clean government.  Instead, his sex scandals are the subject of national news; we hear of a new example of state government corruption almost every day; and a state transportation employee was just convicted on bribery charges, accompanied by allegations that the corruption runs deep in the state transportation department.  What happened? 

          The fact is, as long as government officials have favors to sell, people will find a way to pay for them.  Restricting private funding of political campaigns and forcing the taxpayers to finance the campaigns simply means that government officials will sell their favors for some other types of compensation.  Let's consider just a few examples of the forms of payment we have seen under campaign finance reforms' so-called "clean" government:

          1.      sexual favors

          2.      bribes

          3.      jobs for family members

          4.      vacations

          5.      incredible returns on "investments" in cattle futures

          6.      debts forgiven

          7.      bargain deals on real estate

          Kentucky is now operating without a budget, because the Democrats and Republicans couldn't agree on whether taxpayers should be forced to fund the next campaign for governor.  The Republicans oppose the forced funding, and the Democrats support it.  Polls show the public is strongly against forced funding of political campaigns, but the Democrats, Common Cause, and The Courier-Journal (who see themselves as the heroes of the people) still strongly defend forced taxpayer funding of elections.  Their positions are as follows:

1.      The C-J says we should imagine how much more corrupt the Patton Administration would have been without taxpayer funding of Patton's campaigns.

2.      Common Cause says the problem is that there is still some private money used in political campaigns, so the process is still corrupt.  Only when we completely rid the political process of private funding will we reach the utopia of "clean" government.  (But that would leave the insiders completely in charge, and what about all the other forms of payments that can still be used to buy government officials?  How does Common Cause propose to deal with those problems?)

3.      Democrats say the governor's office was "for sale" before taxpayers began funding the campaigns, and if taxpayers are not forced to subsidize political campaigns, it will be "for sale" again.  (And now it's not?)

Obviously, these folks are having a tough time facing reality.

          Since forcing taxpayers to fund political campaigns doesn't clean up the government, what will?  The answer is simple -- reduce government power.  When government officials can no longer threaten to cripple businesses with regulations, the businesses will not find it necessary to try to buy protection.  (Tina Conner said she engaged in kinky forms of sex with the governor that she found repugnant, because she feared for her business.)  When government cannot provide special tax breaks to businesses, or special favored status to government contractors, or special handouts or favors to various groups, there will be little influence to sell. 

          If we really want clean government, we need to keep government on a very short leash and under a very close watch.  If government were limited to its proper, essential functions of defending life, liberty, and property and resolving contract disputes (the short leash), it would be much cleaner, and it would be much easier to keep a close watch on such a small government.  Instead, we have a huge government that regulates us from cradle to grave.

          But, you may ask, who will protect us from the evildoers and help us over the rough spots in life if not the government?  Who will protect nursing home residents, coal miners and other workers, the elderly, the poor, the children, and the disadvantaged if not the benevolent government?

          I would like to suggest to you that government regulations and funds transfers really do not protect any of us.  Instead, these programs just make us all poorer, less capable of taking care of ourselves, and more dependent on the government, while giving government officials more influence to sell. 

          Just take a look around.  Do you see the elderly who have been forced to pay into Social Security all their lives, who now have no nest egg to show for it?  They have no investments or annuities, and the government has no contractual obligation to give them any money at all.  This leaves them afraid and totally dependent on the benevolence of government.  How have they really been protected?

          Do you see children who receive a "free" government education but who still cannot read, write, analyze problems, or do math?  They are indoctrinated daily about political correctness, but are they really being protected and helped by government?

          Do you see workers still working under unsafe conditions?  Do you see property owners whose water supplies have been ruined by industry?  Are they really being protected by government?

          Sadly, the "utopia" promised by those who promote an ever-larger government "protector" never seems to materialize.  In fact, the more power that is amassed by the government, the more people are left weak, dependent, and defenseless.  With our resources drained away by taxes, we are far less able to take care of ourselves and others and to create jobs and abundance than we would have been if government had left us alone.  Not a surprising result, when you think of it.  Unfortunately, after receiving a "free" government education, there aren't very many people left who are really able to think.

Weather (Louisville) / Mapquest / Search / White Pages / Business Search / CNN / Dictionary / E-card / MSN