Dr. Martin Hash Podcast

The arguments used to promote public financing of political campaigns is that money drowns out competing voices, and the Marxist idea that all candidates should start on a equal playing field. Some cities, like Seattle, have added a tax to Real Property to finance local candidates. But why are property owners specifically responsible for democracy? And it has the debate fallacy that it only addresses money but no amount of money can beat an entrenched incumbent. Not to mention that successful candidates are more the product of Special Interests than money. Will the taxes have to continually be raised to meet the requirements of megabuck campaigns with engorged fields of potential free-money-seeking candidates?

Other implications of public campaign financing are very concerning, starting with the idea that people without money are more deserving of elective office. And what about the advantages of church affiliation, appearance, speaking skill, populist pandering, age, luck, party anointing, etc.? These things are all just as powerful, if not more powerful than money: are those constituencies going to be forced to spread their endorsements around? Why should we be shoring up the financial weaknesses of the one side without contributing to the populist attractiveness of the other? The concept of public campaign financing is simply a socialist tactic to try and stack the deck in their favor, the populist equivalent of voter suppression laws.