A Libertarian Justification for Mandatory Public Campaign Financing

I used to strongly oppose mandatory public financing for the usual libertarian reasons. I used to view it as a freedom of speech and freedom of association issue. Obviously then, we have the freedom to associate our money with any cause we like in any amount we desire to get those causes to work. I also strongly supported voluntary public financing, on the condition that the candidate would not accept contributions from anywhere else (If they opted out, they would have instant disclosure, and no contributions from anything that can't vote [i.e. no unions, corporations, or anything that's not a living, breathing voter], ... but unlimited contributions from anything that can)

I've come to believe that freedom of association is true for contributing to non-profits and political causes, but candidates are a different story. Government has a monopoly on force, and trying to advance your cause through the government involves using force against others. This negates the freedom of speech and freedom of association arguments. The use of force should not be bought and sold.

At the same time, I realize full well that your views should determine who contributes to you, not the other way around, and the problem isn't the mosquitoes (special interests), it's that elected officials are providing a swamp for them. If you can't take a contribution and vote against the contributor the next day, you don't belong in office. As much as I would love for politicians to no longer provide the mosquitoes a swamp, we cannot depend on that for many reasons. The best we can do is block the mosquitoes from getting to the swamp. Public financing is not the only thing that needs to be done, but it provides a great start.

I support mandatory public financing for elected office, but I do so knowing it's purely mitigation.

this topic was discussed a few months ago in this previous post.

just to outline the problems of mandatory public financing:

1) the public financing laws themselves would be subject to the same regulatory capture that you are already comparing to a swamp and mosquitoes. Remember the rules aren't being written by a disinterested, external party. They are being written by the "swamp and the mosquitoes."

2) It would invariably strengthen the status quo. Since the State is not going to just let anyone run(that is publicly finance a campaign), you are granting a potentially frightening power to the State in determining who gets to run for office. Who decides? In all likelihood, a large part would probably be delegated to the political parties, in selecting who gets to run. So already, I can see a new monopoly/special interest/cartel rents being created by the party establishment bidding out rents(that is, public finance money) to it's members. So you wanna run for office? Well, join the party, work your way up the hierarchy, kiss enough ass, then you might be selected to run for office at some point. If you are a gadfly like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, well, sorry, you'll never be selected to get public finance money(and you can't run for office without the public money). Hmmm, this is starting to sound like the dynamics of a proto communist party. Of course, the only two parties that would be able meet the entry burdens/requirements of having the power to run candidates would be the Dems and the Repubs. No other parties would be able to meet the entry burdens. So you end up with an even more entrenched 2-party duopoly State, with each party running their own version of a proto-communist party hierarchy.

If you don't delegate this power to the parties, well then there is going to have be some minimum standard in place that qualifies one to receive public money. You are either going to have to poll a minimum amount or collect a minimum amount of signatures. Well guess what, it takes money and time(and time is an opportunity cost) to achieve this, if you are not already well-known or an ensconced member of a party establishment.

3) It does nothing to address the institutional issues of the Tullock Auction. Campaign contributions have never been the sole source of compensation for politicians competitively bidding out artificial rents. And if campaign contributions go away, there will just be alternative mechanisms that will emerge to funnel compensation.

4) It violates the first amendment.

In summary, mandatory public financing does not solve the problem of Tullock Auctions, which are a consequence of monopoly government. The likely only two results of mandatory public financing of campaigns is just to create additional Tullock Auctions for bidding out who gets to run for office through the hierarchy of the party(receiving the artificial rent of the public campaign money), or placing more onerous burdens on those who wish to petition or challenge the government. This right is not contingent upon your "public polling numbers."

The only solution to the problems of monopoly government is to get rid of the monopoly...

Thank you for your reply. A few things

1. That's true for all regulations, which doesn't stop me from supporting certain regulations. Pigovian taxes such as the carbon tax would be subject to public choice theory too, doesn't mean I don't support the concept or wouldn't support a genuine carbon tax if it ever was proposed

2. That would easily be struck down by the courts. Once government offers subsidies, yes, they can add on any provisions they want, but that only applies to when it's the recipient's choice of whether to take it. For example, government can make a home inspection a condition on receiving welfare payments, but can't force someone to take welfare and inspect their home. Needless to say, I would not support public financing if what you say would be a part of it

3. This is true, but I don't oppose something for what it doesn't do. I only oppose something if I don't like what it does

4. I don't believe that for a second. Buying policy and favors by force is not speech. Even if it did violate the first amendment, I would support a constitutional amendment for public financing and not allowing government to impose any further restrictions on running for office than exist right now

This idea would only apply to candidates, nothing to do with petitioning or anything else

The Silent Consensus

1) Of course, public choice applies to all regulations; this broaches a broader topic of "governance" vs "government"(that is, "natural, regular" order of things vs. artificial orders), but, in this instance, I'm particularly focused on the public choice problems of radically altering how current government functions; a new sub-provision to a current provision in the tax code is not the same thing as radically altering the rules of how people are elected to office; so, I'm not particularly interested in arguing the public choice aspects of a new tax sub-provision, but i am interested in applying public choice analysis in analyzing proposed major changes in things such as elections.

2) I actually don't think mandated public financing would withstand a supreme court review at this time, but if it did, it would likely play out exactly as i described it. Your analogy of obligations attached to "welfare payments" doesn't comport with the public choice dynamics of people being prevented to run for office unless they meet burdensome entry requirements. The former involves duties attached to a positive right, whereas the latter involves duties attached to a negative right, that is the negative right to actually have a so-called representative, elected government.

3) Aren't you proposing public financing as a means to constrain Tullock Auctions(Public Choice)? If it doesn't do that, you are not going to oppose it? You are only going to oppose it after the unintended consequences become apparent? Libertarian analysis is useless if you ignore the predicted unintended consequences, because the unintended consequences are quite difficult to retract.

4) petitioning the government for the redress of grievances has to allow the right to attempt to vote in new representation in government if the current government doesn't satisfactorily resolve such grievances(otherwise, what's the point of democracy?); we can debate the pros and cons of the rationality of voting, but your position makes this argument moot, and violates the first amendment, because petitioning the government for redress of grievances is point-blank meaningless if there are burdensome duties that have to be met before one can run for office.

I support mandatory public financing and I do not support burdensome entry requirements. One can exist without the other. It's not like declaring health care a "right" with enslavement of doctors (if "necessary") being an unintended consequence.

I support public financing without burdensome entry requirements, and would oppose both if one led to another.

The Silent Consensus

Are you advocating that anyone who wants to run for office should receive "public financing?" If not, then you are imposing some sort of minimum, qualifying standard to qualify for the funds. And remember, you are advocating that public funding be mandatory. I assure you, the qualifying standards to receive such funding would be quite high;

I am for anyone who wants to run for office receiving public financing, with runoffs of course

The Silent Consensus

voting rules are not federally set, they are locally determined, even though most localities use a plurality voting system with party primaries. attaching public funding to voting systems opens up a 14th amendment challenge to your proposal, apart from the obvious 1st amendment challenge.

that we have competing governments?

The Silent Consensus

However, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist; my position differs in some significant ways, particularly with respect to land and (some) natural resources, in that I hold more or less "georgist" views...

pseudo-anarchy. Explain to me what would happen here under your idea:

Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police from Government A goes to Mr. Jones’ house and is stopped at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they reject the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and the authority of Government A.

The Silent Consensus

I don't want to get off-topic by diverting into a discussion about the pro-cons of market anarchy, but these type of questions have been examined in detail by, for example, David Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom"

I think that campaing finance (at least on the side of restricting activities/donation) is a game a "whack a mole" and a real waste of the efforts for reformers.

Basically, it runs up against first amendment issues, so there are always loopholes. Good-government groups have wasted 30 years on this issues, and despite several legislative successes, they've accomplished nothing with respect to reducing the influence of wealth on politics.