Glenn Greenwald does a good job of skewering David Brooks's claim that the huge amount of money spent by organizations like the Chamber of Commerce for the upcoming elections doesn't really matter. The fact that Brooks has to understate the amount of spending makes the argument self-refuting. In addition, it should be pointed out that politics doesn't end on Election Day. Organizations like the Chamber of Commerce make campaign donations not just to change election outcomes but to influence the behavior of members of Congress after elections. The current laissez-faire campaign-finance regime inaugurated by the Supreme Court's Citizens' United decision, therefore, is likely to exacerbate what is already the serious problem of wealthy interests having a disproportionate effect on legislative outcomes.
Meanwhile, Richard Hasen has a nice article about the bait-and-switch that conservatives have pulled on campaign finance. When they first started arguing against campaign-finance restrictions, conservatives used to claim that most limitations on campaign donations and spending were unnecessary because sunshine would be a disinfectant; legislators, the logic went, wouldn't want to be seen as pawns of powerful interests. This argument isn't very persuasive to begin with, as it assumes a level of knowledge and interest most voters don't possess. But needless to say, as a libertarian campaign-finance regime becomes increasingly entrenched, all of a sudden disclosure becomes unnecessary -- indeed, the anonymity of corporate interests seeking to influence politics should be sacred. For the reasons Hasen explains, this is a really bad idea.
-- Scott Lemieux
