Is campaign finance reform really good for our democracy? John Samples says , and here takes a penetrating look into the premises and consequences of the long crusade against big money in politics. How many Americans, he asks, kw that there is little to evidence that campaign contributions really influence members of Congress? Or that so-called negative political advertising actually improves the democratic process by increasing voter turut and kwledge? Or that limits on campaign contributions make it harder to run for office, thereby protecting incumbent representatives from losing their seats of power?Posing tough questions such as these, Samples uncovers numerous fallacies beneath proposals for campaign finance reform. He argues that our most common concerns about money in politics are misplaced, and that the chance to regulate money in politics actually allows representatives to serve their own interests at a cost to their constituents. And, ironically, this crusade against the corruption caused by campaign contributions allows public officials to reduce their vulnerability by suppressing electoral competition.Defying long-held assumptions and conventional political wisdom, The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform is a provocative and decidedly npartisan work that will be essential for anyone concerned about the future of American government.
John Samples directs the Cato Institute's Center for Representative Government and teaches in the government program at the Johns Hopkins University in Washington, D.C.