Reducing the amount of money in politics has long been a goal of the “reform” community. In Philadelphia, proponents of contribution limits believed that contribution limits would reduce the costs of election. Well, in Philadelphia, the “reformers” got their contribution limits but they did not get reduced spending.
The Philadelphia Inquirer found that campaign spending in Philadelphia’s first ever primary with contribution limits was, surprise, “comparable to past campaigns.” The only difference, as noted by the Inquirer, is that “candidates had to work harder to raise the money.”
So it turns out that instead of reducing the amount of money in politics, contribution limits force candidates to spend more time groveling for money. Unfortunately, the “reform” community also complains that candidates spend too much time fundraising.
Undoubtedly the reformers already have a solution to this paradox in mind: more campaign finance laws.
