Greg Orman, the independent candidate last year for U.S. Senate in Kansas, has this article in The Hill. The article points out the extreme disparity between how much an individual can give to an independent candidate for federal office, versus how much an individual can give to a political party.
From the article cited, entitled Democracy Gerrymandered:
Over the past 200 years, politicians of both parties have been engaged in an uninterrupted contest to figure out how to rig the election rules to create an advantage for themselves or their party. From how we design our ballots, to how we determine voter eligibility, to the rules we impose on candidates, our elected officials spend significant time and energy in an attempt to give themselves a safer path to reelection. If you get the rules right, the thinking goes, you don’t have to have the best ideas or nominate the best candidates. You don’t even need to serve your constituents.
In fact, this practice has become so commonplace, that Democrats and Republicans often work together to rig the rules at the expense of everyone else. For example, recent changes to campaign finance in the bi-partisan CRomnibus Bill that was signed in December further entrench the power of the two major political parties. Under the new rules, an individual can contribute up to $777,600 per year to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, but can only give $5,400 to an independent candidate running for federal office. Only a Washington politician could justify such a disparity.
The more the two parties work to rig the system to their advantage, the less responsive they become to voters. In the free market economy, we believe in the power of competition to bring the best the value to consumers. As a result, innovative upstarts often supplant stodgy companies that are set in their ways. This principle of economic freedom and valuing competition has made the lives of Americans better, improved our economy, and rewarded innovators.
When it comes to our politics, however, we’ve forgotten that lesson. It’s no surprise that a large plurality of Americans now consider themselves politically independent. As the two parties work to entrench themselves and become less responsive to the needs of voters, they are turning voters off. Eventually this will backfire.
As a practical matter, I would agree that there should be no law limiting how much anyone can contribute to anything.
However, from a purely theoretical standpoint, I think most people would agree that hiring someone (e.g. a hitman) to commit aggression would constitute a violation of the NAP. So, does that mean that contributing to the campaign of a politician who publicly supports the use of aggression would count as a violation of the NAP?
There should not be any law limiting how much anyone contributes to an individual candidate or party.