Subsidies for Political Advocacy Distort Democracy

October 01, 2006

by John Samples, Christopher Yablonski, and Ivan G. Osorio

What's wrong with having the government subsidize political advocacy?

Many people would be tempted to support government-funded advocacy of policies and positions of which they approve. However, judging advocacy subsidies on the basis of the content of policies gets us nowhere. Americans disagree about policies, which means they would disagree about subsidizing advocacy - and might even change their position depending on the issue at hand. We want to get beyond the substance of policies and suggest two ways public subsidies for policy advocacy harm the American political process.

First, public subsidies for political advocacy distort the democratic process. American democracy should be constitutional, responsive, and neutral. Taken together, those three criteria of democracy reveal why public subsidies are a bad idea.

American democracy takes place within a constitutional framework that constrains collective choice. Within those constitutional restraints, the American political process responds to the demands of citizens and translates them into laws and public policies. All things being equal, government should supply policies that fit the demands of citizens for public policy. When working correctly, government would reflect the wants of citizens about public activities; supply would equal demand under conditions of political competition and constitutional restraints.

To accurately reflect the demands of the American people, government should be neutral toward the political process. American government should respond only to constitutionally legitimate demands of citizens. If, however, government abandons neutrality, goes beyond responding to citizens' demands, and helps groups or individuals seek policies favorable to them, the political process will be biased toward the subsidized groups or individuals. Such bias will prevent the government from making laws that accurately reflect the wants and desires of the American people. Public subsidies distort democracy by weighting some demands more heavily than others. Subsidies thereby create a false picture of the political demands of citizens. Policymakers will necessarily receive a distorted view of the wants of the American people.

Note that this argument against subsidies for political advocacy is neutral among ideologies and interests. Government might subsidize groups that lobby for a reduction in the size of government. In our view, that subsidy would distort the democratic process. The evidence strongly suggests that government support of groups that favor more government is more common than public subsidies for advocates of smaller government, but we are not trying to prove that point here. Public subsidies for advocacy are inappropriate regardless of the political consequences.

Second, public subsidies for advocacy compel citizens to support political positions they abhor. Thomas Jefferson once wrote, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical." We should recall that federal funds do not fall from the sky; they come from taxpayers. Insofar as the federal government subsidizes political advocacy, it forces some citizens to support political causes they would oppose if given a choice. Surely such compulsion is the most disturbing aspect of public subsidies.

Our concerns about public subsidies involve a basic principle of our political culture: Americans are both free from government intervention in matters of personal conscience and free from being forced to support the convictions of others in such matters. For example, our Constitution and political culture recognize that government may neither restrict nor support religious convictions and practices. Jefferson was saying, we think, that political convictions should be treated the same way. The government should neither restrict freedom of speech and association nor subsidize the propagation of political convictions. We ought not subsidize or empower political causes any more than we should establish a national church with taxpayer funds. To do so is to coerce individuals about matters of fundamental concern.

Government should reflect, not determine, the outcome of political struggles. It should not be a player in the political game, directly or indirectly.

This article is excerpted from "More Government for All: How Taxpayers Subsidize Anti-Tax Cut Advocacy," a 2001 policy analysis published by the Cato Institute.