Restrict the Vote

Last week on Wednesday, April 2, the Supreme Court made a ruling on the McCutcheon v. FEC case, which resulted in the striking down of limits on overall federal campaign donations set since the 70s. It was a 5-to-4 decision to drop the limit on the total money a single person is allowed to contribute to a spectrum of candidates. Whereas before the decision, you were allowed to contribute only a few thousand dollars in total per year, now you’re permitted to contribute as much as you’d like so long as no single political recipient receives more than a few thousand.

There has been some rather tremendous wailing and gnashing of teeth about this decision, which was a bit puzzling to me at first. Prior to the ruling, if you were crazy-rich and you wanted to buy an election, all you had to do was fund a super-PAC. Now, you’re still limited in what you can contribute to any single campaign directly, you just aren’t limited in how many campaigns to which you can contribute at any given time.

So why all the angst? Because it’s a well-accepted axiom of politics that he or she who wields the most money statistically over time will win more elections. Why? Because of three problems with humans. Continue reading Restrict the Vote