BOOK REVIEWS 155
The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform. By John Samples. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2006; pp xi + 375. $29.00 cloth.
Like other controversial political issues, the issue of campaign finance reform
has become bitterly divided and partisan with a wide gulf separating reformers
and deregulators. The opposing sides seldom agree on terminology, facts, or
values, let alone how to interpret and evaluate those facts to make policy deci-
sions. John Samples, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Representative
Government, sets out to bridge that divide and test the assumptions and
evidence of campaign finance reform proponents in The Fallacy of Campaign
Finance Reform, but ultimately succeeds only in providing talking points for
adherents to his position.
Samples’s viewpoint is clear not only in the title of the book but also
throughout its pages. Samples argues that “campaign finance reform is a
delusion” (280) created by Democrats and other progressives to equalize
political influence and balance wealth in all of society. Further, he reasons
that regulations on campaign contributions are created by incumbent leg-
islators to give themselves an electoral advantage and that these restrictions
limit freedom of expression. These regulations, Samples writes, violate the
First Amendment provision that Congress shall make no law abridging the
freedom of speech because donating money to a political candidate or orga-
nization is a form of expression. According to Samples, regulating money in
politics is akin to regulating political speech: “Today no one should exercise
his or her First Amendment right to freedom of speech without advice from
counsel.… In the United States, speech is no longer very free in any sense of
the word” (1).
Based on this self-described libertarian perspective, Samples challenges the
arguments and evidence of campaign finance reform proponents. He exam-
ines several justifications of finance constraints including that such regula-
tion reduces corruption in politics, improves our political culture and public
sphere, brings greater equality to campaigns, and increases electoral compe-
tition. He argues that “we should assess existing or proposed restrictions on
money in