Star Parker: “It is instructive to consider the reasoning of those who want campaign contributions limited and who think the McCutcheon decision is bad. The New York Times, for instance. According to the Times’ reasoning, without limits on campaign contributions, we get corruption – like bribery – and improper and unfair influence by those with the most money over politicians. But it’s really the opposite. Controls cause unfairness, which sometimes leads to corruption. Not free markets. Suppose Congress passed a law limiting the amount of funds that businesses can spend on advertising. It would be firms that want to bring new products to market that would be hurt the most. Existing and known firms whose products are already on the shelves would be protected as result of stifled competition. In the 2012 elections, 90 percent of incumbent members of congress were re-elected. Incumbent reelection rates in this range are typical. Limiting the amount of funds that free citizens can contribute to candidates, or how much those candidates can spend, just stifles competition and protects incumbents. … Proctor and Gamble spent $4.8 billion in advertising to support their $84 billion in sales. However, American citizens spent a total of $7 billion in political campaigns for candidates who, after elected, have sway over almost $4 trillion in government spending – a quarter of America’s whole economy. We have plenty of information and competition in the market for soap but not for the political ideas that affect our whole country. Does this make sense?”