Chip Taylor

Positive government and its consequences

Mark Daniels observes the campaigns for the special election in Ohio's second district and expresses concern about the level of campaign spending:

Every time I see the amounts of money raised and spent in these campaigns, it makes me sick. Think of how much good could be done with the money generated in these campaigns.

That's the nature of rent seeking. Once you have a government with the power to take from some and to give to others, people find it worthwhile to expend resources to ensure that they are on the receiving end.

And what, exactly, do these donors think they're buying when they make their campaign contributions?

There are two reasons to make a campaign contribution. One reason is that you believe the contribution will give you influence over the decisions he makes once he is in office. The other reason is that the candidate already favors a large number of policies that you favor. You make the contribution, not to influence him, but rather to increase his chances of election.

I'd say that most small contributions are made for the latter reason; most large contributions for a combination of the two.

I don't blame candidates who are only dealing with a system they had nothing to do with establishing. But the need for change not only in our laws, but in our attitudes about politics, government, and public office is obvious. Meritocracy has never existed in this fallen old world. And ultimately, who among us can claim to be truly meritorious?

But do we have to continue suffering under the politics of the highest bidder?

Public policy is largely about tradeoffs. If you want more of this, then you have to settle for less of that. Or, if you have more of one thing that you want, then you have to put up with more of some other thing that you don't want. Nothing comes free.

One consequence of a large, activist government is an ongoing and expensive struggle for control over it. The two go hand in hand.