Time after time, we see the government create campaign finance spending laws to somehow control how much money (and consequently influence) some people can have over our political process. But every time the Congress passes “campaign reform” laws, it simply moves where the money is spent.

The amount of money spent on political campaigns continues to grow. This year, it is estimated that the two major candidates for President, George Bush and John Kerry, will combined spend over one billion dollars on the presidential campaign. This comes immediately after the latest round of “campaign finance reform”.

Patrick Basham writing in an article in the National Review nails the problem. We don’t need more “campaign finance reform” to cure the ills of continually increases on campaign contributions and spending. The only thing that will clearly work is to decrease the size and scope of government.

the most important factor driving campaign finance upward is “more government.” Simply stated, the growth of government spending fosters the growth in campaign spending. Taxes and regulations on society have increased the ambit of government at all levels. Increasing government activity leads to more efforts to influence political decisions, including spending on campaigns, a relationship confirmed by scholarly studies.

As government does and spends more, individuals try to influence government, both to advance their causes and to protect themselves from abuse. And government has grown enormously. In 2000, the federal government taxed Americans to the tune of $2.03 trillion, a 250-percent real increase since 1970. On the expenditure side, federal-government spending reached .79 trillion in 2000, a 915 percent nominal increase over the previous 30 years….

There’s solid empirical evidence that expanding government results in increases in campaign spending. For example, research by economist John Lott Jr. found that 87 percent of the rise in federal campaign spending between 1976 and 1994 was attributable to the ,101 per capita rise (in real terms) in federal government spending….

The only plausible solution, then, is to limit the size of government. Anything else merely treats the symptoms without addressing the underlying disease of the body politic. Lower government spending will lead to lower levels of campaign contributions; in turn, that will result in lower levels of campaign spending.

So, the only reasonable way to decrease the amount of money spent on campaigns is to reduce the power of the politicians who are elected. Limited government is the only cure to problems with campaign spending. If people and businesses no longer need to purchase government support in an attempt to minimize taxes and regulations, they will stop giving their hard earned money to the candidates for political office.

It is a simple and logical solution. However I doubt it will be implemented. Instead we will be subjected to yet another round of “campaign finance reform” laws to deal with the latest increases in campaign contributions, with the end result of the money moving to the candidate via some newly found loophole.

Start up the Merry-Go-Round. We’re about to go around again.