Extremism and Liberty

"Tonight, our country, that which we stand for and all we hold dear, faces a grave and terrible threat. This violent and unparalleled assault on our security will not go undefended...or unpunished. Our enemy is an insidious one, seeking to divide us and destroy the very foundation of our great nation. Tonight, we must remain steadfast. We must remain determined. But most of all, we must remain united."
--Adam Sutler (V for Vendetta)

It's difficult to imagine that this administration doesn't lose more political support each time it opens its mouth. Last night Biden spoke like a geriatrically challenged version of Adam Sutler, declaring that supporters of Donald Trump and the Make America Great Again ideology constitute a "threat to our country."

If one infers that those who voted for Trump in 2020 comprise this group, then it numbers at least 70 million.

The president's press secretary added the e-word. The president, she said, sees this group as "an extreme threat to our democracy."

Moreover, "when you are not with where the majority of Americans are, then, you know, that is extreme. That is an extreme way of thinking."

Setting aside questions involving what precisely in MAGA ideology is inconsistent with the views of the majority of Americans, or, for that matter, whether MAGA ideology itself doesn't actually constitute the majority viewpoint, any American with a modicum of grounding in US history understands that our founding ancestors designed a government that protected the rights of those who not aligned with the whims of majority opinion. 

If the press secretary's definition of extremism is employed, then opinions inconsistent with the majority are to be protected from tyrannical treatment. Government is legally barred from acting against 'extremists'--again defined as those who think differently from the 'majority.' 

My sense is that Americans still understand this founding principle well enough they are are turned off by the caustic 'extremist' claims of leftists.

Tocqueville's Warnings

"You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it."
--Morpheus (The Matrix)

GMU's Dan Klein discusses some important points from Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America. In 1831 Tocqueville and a colleague were sent by the French government to study America's prison system. For the better part of a year, they toured the US and some parts of Canada. 

After returning home and reporting their findings, Tocqueville continued on, writing a two volume set with the first volume published in 1835 and the second in 1840. Although titled Democracy in America, Tocqueville's work was really a treatise on democracy in general, a phenomenon that in his view had been in motion for centuries.

Klein focuses primarily on Tocqueville's conclusions, or warnings, many which appear near the end of volume two in a chapter entitled, "What Sort of Despotism Democratic Nations Have to Fear." It turns out that Tocqueville had been worried about the ultimate outcomes of democracy for some time, and his whirlwind tour of the US did not quell his fears. According to Klein, Tocqueville feared two scenarios in particular.

One was despotism from a "tyranny of the majority." Tocqueville was not the first to envision such an outcome, as similar concerns appear in the writings of our founding ancestors. Tyranny of the majority is bad not only because it rules by shallow, group-inflicted dogma (rather than by rule of law), but because of its constant expansion of government and its dominance in social affairs. Even if citizens do not regard it as tyranny, Tocqueville argues that it is because it is not in each citizen's interest. It "monopolizes movement and existence" even though "it does not ride roughshod over humanity."

Tocqueville's point is that tyranny of the majority can subtle, gradual, and perhaps even enticing enough for citizen subjects to demand it.

This leads to a worse scenario. Citizens "renounce the use of their wills" and lose "little by little the faculty of thinking, feeling, and acting for themselves." They outsource their faculties to rulers believed to make decisions in their interest--often under the guise of equality of condition.

Such a belief is delusional. Tocqueville writes that a small group inevitably assumes control of the machinery of government for its own interests. Tyranny of the majority becomes tyranny by minority rule. The power proceed to destroy or modify institutions and customs. 

Ironically, people come to prefer "equality in servitude to inequality in freedom." Wow. Well said.

A citizen enjoys "goods as a tenant, without spirit of ownership." A "miserable person" can understand "robbing the public treasury or selling favors of the state for money...and can flatter himself with doing as much in his turn."

At the time of his writing, Tocqueville opined that "the majority...still lacks the most perfect instruments of tyranny...If ever freedom is lost in America, one will have to blame the omnipotence of the majority"

It is difficult not to spot manifestations of Tocqueville's warnings in current affairs.

Impeachment Partisanship

Here comes the rain again
Falling on my head like a memory
Falling on my head like a new emotion
--Eurythmics

Alan Dershowitz discusses the Constitutional basis of impeachment and the debates of our founding ancestors about the issue. To be impeached, a president must commit a crime, and the commission of that crime must also constitute an abuse of office. Abuse of office by itself may be wrong, but it is not an impeachable offense.

The basis for impeachment was debated at the Constitutional Convention. When simply 'maladminstration' was proposed as grounds for impeachment, James Madison objected, arguing that the criterion was so vague and open-ended that the president would serve at the will of Congress and turn the federal government into a parliamentary democracy where the president could be removed with a vote of no confidence.

Instead, the framers adopted strict requirements for impeachment. Bribery, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors must be evident. A 2/3 super-majority vote in the Senate is required for removal.

In Federalist 65, Alexander Hamilton wrote of the dangers of a partisan approach to impeachment. Dershowitz suggests that the recent House impeachment circus demonstrates the partisan approach well. He suggests that impeachment partisanship further divides the nation and threatens to weaken the Constitution.

Perhaps, but the framers might also suggest that a partisan approach to impeachment is also likely to boomerang the party that goes on a unilateral witch hunt for all to see.

Democracy and Liberty

All for freedom and for pleasure
Nothing ever lasts forever
Everybody wants to rule the world
--Tears for Fears

We can take Prof Williams' observation a step further. Not only are democracy and liberty not the same, but they work against each other.

"Democracy and liberty are not the same. Democracy is little more than mob rule, while liberty refers to the sovereignty of the individual."
--Walter Williams (@WE_Williams) pic.twitter.com/u5XjkJqPWt

— Larry Elder (@larryelder) August 24, 2019

Democracy, defined as decisions made by majority rule, implies that those who can marshal a majority vote can trample on the liberties of those in the minority.

The greater the reliance on political decisions using democratic process, the lower the liberty.

Our founding ancestors understood this negative relationship well.

Electoral College Nonsense

'Cause you've got to blame someone
For your own confusion
We're on guard this time
Against your final solution
--Red Ryder

As progressivism was gaining traction a century ago, leaders of the movement such as Woodrow Wilson dismissed the Constitution as out of date. We needed a new, more modern governing design that kept up with the times, so went the argument.

Because this approach consequently didn't resonate with many Americans, progressives have since then been searching for more compelling rationales for overthrowing the governing framework developed by our founding ancestors.

The rationale du jour is that the founding design is steeped in the all too familiar ad hominem cry of the left: racism and slavery. Among the current targets of this weak form of argument is the electoral college. Progressives, of course, are upset with this approach for electing presidents because several of their candidates lost elections while winning the popular vote.

Tara Ross presents the progressive argument that the electoral college is an 'antiquated relic of slavery' and a 'pro-slavery compromise,' and then demolishes the it with evidence to the contrary.

Of course, anyone who has completed junior high civics should already know this. The United States was not founded as a democracy, but as a federal republic. Because the founders clearly understood the dangers of majority rule--particularly in a 'union of states' such as the United States--they designed the electoral college as a means for reducing dominance of big states over small.

Ross cites one of the many of the anti-slavery delegates to the constitutional convention, Gunning Bedford of Delaware, who said that the small states simply feared that they would be outvoted time and again by the large states. The electoral college can be seen as a device for coping with those fears.

The division between small and large states was the greatest difference that needed to be overcome at the convention in order to obtain agreement on a 'union of states.'

Theory and history work against progressives, who would much rather erase both in favor of nonsense.

Voting for a Living

Hundred dollar car note
Two hundred rent
I get a check on Friday
But it's already spent
--Huey Lewis & The News

Six years ago, then presidential candidate Mitt Romney noted that nearly half of all Americans pay less in taxes than they receive in transfer payments from the government. His primary point at the time was that it would be difficult for most of those people to support political platforms grounded in tax cut policy because voting for lower taxes would mean voting for lower transfer payments.

Fast forward to today. The fraction of all Americans receiving more in transfer than they are paying in taxes has now surpassed 50%. Mises observed that once the majority of a voters in a democratic system receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes, they will demand ever more wealth transferred to them from the minority of remaining producers. Politically, the wealth of the minority is forcibly extracted to subsidize the majority.

Rather than working for a living, people realize they can vote for a living.

A fundamental problem with democracy is thus revealed. How is it possible to limit size and scope of government when elections are determined by majority vote, and when increasingly more voters act as principals contracting with strong armed government agents to confiscate resources from ever smaller minority groups on the principals' behalf?

Miseducation About Democracy

If looks could kill
They probably will
In games without frontiers
War without tears
--Peter Gabriel

These pages have observed that one mechanism for leftists to cope with the cognitive dissonance associated with Donald Trump's election as president is to claim that his victory was illegitimate since he did not win the popular vote. An intuitive extension of this delusion is to call for an end to the Electoral College. Many leftists are making such a call.

To the extent that some Americans might view subjecting presidential elections to a national popular vote, Prof Williams suggests that miseducation by the school systems is a primary culprit. This miseducation begins with the premise that the United States was founded as a democracy. As these pages have frequently observed, Prof Williams notes that the United States was founded as a federal republic, not a democracy. The word 'democracy' does not appear in either the Declaration or the Constitution. He includes classic quotes from Madison, Randolph, Adams, and Hamilton all voicing contempt for democratic designs.

Williams goes on to discuss the Electoral College as device for upholding a republican form of government and for breaking the grip of majority rule votes in presidential elections.

That few people can coherently explain our founding ancestors' logic against democracy and their corresponding efforts to thwart it constitutes ignorance of fundamental civics--miseducation that leftists seek to exploit today.

Democracy and Propaganda

"Why don't you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?"
--Dr Yen Lo (The Manchurian Candidate)

Ron Paul observes that propaganda has conditioned Americans to believe that democracy is associated with freedom and liberty. It isn't, of course. In fact the opposite is true. Democracy, defined as a process for making political decisions by force based on the desires of the voting majority, compromises the freedom of some for the benefit of others.

A favorite tool of propagandists is to manipulate language to create 'positive substitute symbols.' Take a word that people value in a positive manner (liberty), and gradually connect it to a new word (democracy) initially associated with a concept that people are prone to dislike (democracy = system of decision-making by majority force). With enough repetition, the negative connotation linked to the new word is likely to decline in favor of a positive connotation (democracy is a component of liberty).

Presto, the new word becomes cherished and people are berated for treating it in a negative light.

Perversely, then, if you don't support democracy today, then you are viewed as an enemy of freedom.

Democracy, Incrementalism, and State Power

Louden Swain: Can 800 million Chinese be wrong?
Tanneran: Frequently
--Vision Quest

Jeff Deist discusses the danger that democracy poses to freedom over time. Using past examples of income taxes, Social Security, and Medicare, as well as the present situation related to gun control, he argues that these programs evolved over long periods of time as a result of incremental gains gradually obtained thru democratic process.

This is not a new argument, of course. Growth of state power thru incrementalism (a.k.a. gradualism or fabianism) has been discussed on these pages before. A necessary ingredient of incrementalism is ability to foster compromise, the favored strategy of statists for getting people to cede liberty over time.

He makes a particularly insightful remark near the end of the piece:

"Democracy is nothing more than the process of politically vanquishing minority viewpoints."

Indeed--as these pages have long observed. Democracy, defined as decision-making processes based on majority vote, strips rights from some for the benefit of others. Although the dangers of democracy were well known to our founding ancestors, they are little understood today.

Seemingly, democracy's incremental compromises that erode liberty grow chains of bondage so gradually that most people fail to notice.

Breaking Ranks

"You'll never be one of them."
--Captain George von Trapp (The Sound of Music)

Many people mock the inability of Republicans to stand together on a variety of issues. Look at the Democrats, they say. Dems have the ability to die to one's self, to take one for the team, to stand in solidarity.

Why is such unity deemed valuable? Because in a democratic political system numbers matter. If you can somehow get enough otherwise diverse factions to band together with you then you can gain control of the strong arm of government.

This is why liberty and democracy are fundamentally at odds. Those willing to compromise in order to join a majority faction are prone to give their freedom away.

This is also why collectivists are attracted to democracy. By definition, collectivists emphasize group over individual interests. They are more prone to compromise for the sake of the collective.

Preference for collectivism can be seen as distributed across a spectrum:

Highly collectivist preference <------------------>Low collectivist preference.

Preference for collectivism should be inversely related to preference for liberty.

It is safe to say that people with more collectivistic tendencies will be attracted toward the Democratic Party while people with less collectivistic tendencies will be drawn toward the Republican Party.

Because they are less collectivistic by nature, Republicans are more prone to break ranks and disagree on issues. This naturally puts them at a disadvantage in political systems grounded in first-past-the-post political processes.

Federal Republic

"Now, you're not naive enough to think that we're living in a democracy, are you, Buddy?"
--Gordon Gekko (Wall Street)

When quizzed about the form of government put forth by our founding ancestors, many people reflexively call it a democracy. This is mistaken. The United States was designed as a federal republic.

Federal refers to a system of government where states unify (the United States) and delegate some authority to a central (federal) government. The states retain all powers not expressly delegated to the central government so that they can remain independent in their own affairs.

Republic means that the people hold the supreme power of the land. They exercise that power through elected representatives, through laws and a legal system that represent them, and the right to secession. Representation via elections does not necessarily mean that all citizens of a republic are allowed to vote, that all votes count equally, or that decisions are based on simple majority (50%+) vote.

Classically defined, democracy is a system of government where decisions are made by the faction who can marshal the most votes. It its purest form, democracy constitutes discretionary rule. Laws are determined by the dominant faction and change when the faction changes.

One way of thinking about the difference between a republic and a democracy is that in a republic, sovereignty rests with the individual while in a democracy, sovereignty rests with a group.

Our founding ancestors were famously skeptical of pure democracies. The word 'democracy' does not appear in the Declaration, the US Constitution, or any of the original state constitutions.

The founders did, of course, envision that much of the power vested in the people of the United States republic would be enacted through voting and elections. But few decisions regarding federal government representatives were specified to be made by classic democratic majority rule-type voting. The president was to be elected via an Electoral College that, while requiring more than half of its votes to be cast for the winning candidate, overweighted the votes of smaller, less populated states in order to increase their voice in the matter.

Senators were to be chosen by state legislatures (subsequently modified by the 17th Amendment). The six year senatorial appointments (subsequently elections) were staggered so that 1/3 of the Senate would change every two years. Supreme Court justices were to be nominated by the president with the approval of the Senate.

Only the House of Representatives (house of 'commons') was to be composed of representatives "chosen every second Year by the People of the several States." But even in this case, because there is no constitutional specification for a majority vote, it can be assumed that each state has discretion in deciding how the voting process would work.

It should also be noted that the framers specified several situations requiring super-majority votes. Treaties proposed by the president, for example, required 2/3 approval by the Senate. Constitutional amendments required 2/3 approval from both the House and the Senate followed by ratification of the amendment by 3/4 of the states.

Indeed, our founding ancestors seemed intent on avoiding, and in some cases confounding, pure democratic majority vote decision making processes in order to preserve the federal republic design.

Causes of Political Division

I though the pain and truth 
Were things that really mattered
But you can't stay here
With every single hope you had shattered
--Big Country

These pages have discussed many factors that lead to political division over time. One is socialism. The more property is taken out of the hands of individuals and put in the hands of the state, then the more divisiveness is likely to grow between those who have property and those who want to appropriate it by force.

Exacerbating the problem is another factor, democracy. When control of the strong arm of government is captured by majority vote, then various factions will band together, likely into two opposing groups over time per Duverger's Law, to become the first past the post. The larger the stakes, the more the two opposing groups will seek to win the election and destroy the each other.

Another factor that Lew Rockwell reminds us about is state size in terms of population. Axiomatic to the human condition is diversity and variation. People have different preferences, including preferences related to politics. It stands to reason that as the size of a country grows, then it will be less likely that there will be agreement in terms of how the country should be governed.

A straightforward solution to the size problem is secession. Break up the big country into smaller ones so that people can associate according to their political preferences.

One group that may be catching on here is the left. Although they have long claimed that secession was a racist or treasonous initiative, leftists, because of the current state of political affairs, now seem to be grasping the merits of a break up.

Here's hoping that debates on the merits of breaking big into small escalate.

Popular Vote

In violent times
You shouldn't have to sell your soul
In black and white
They really, really ought to know
--Tears for Fears

One of the Left's many mechanisms for coping with the cognitive dissonance of Donald Trump's victory in the presidential election is to claim that Trump didn't actually win because he lost the popular vote. By 'popular vote,' the Left is referring to the results of the general election which, disregarding the possible impact of voter fraud, currently has Hillary Clinton ahead by approximately a 2.5% margin over Trump.

Winning the popular vote but losing the presidential election is not unusual. It has now happened five times in US history, which equates to nearly one occurrence in every ten presidential elections held in this country.

As specified by the Constitution, it is the Electoral College, not the popular vote, that determines the outcome of presidential election in the United States. As Prof Williams observes, the primary grounds for this was our founding ancestor's deep abhorrence for democracy and majority rule. A search by topic on this site will reveal many posts written about the topic.

Auberon Herbert's 130+ year old essay asks the question that anyone suffering from general election cognitive dissonance must come to terms with: what gives a candidate elected by a democratic majority valid power over the minds, bodies, and possessions of others?

Get Out and Vote?

"It is a kingdom of conscience, or nothing."
--Balian of Ibelin (Kingdom of Heaven)

"Get out and vote." The mantra reaches a crescendo on election day. Since childhood, we are told that because we live in a democracy, voting is our civic duty. Ballots cast reflect 'the will of the people.' And that voting processes grounded in the democratic principle of 'majority rule' are ultimate expressions of freedom.

Perhaps it is the frequency with which these claims are drummed into our heads that causes us to generally accept them as is. However, people willing to don their critical thinking caps in search of truth of likely to conclude that some if not all stock claims underlying the "get out and vote" argument are contestable.

Let's consider one counterargument here.

The proper scope of government is to assist people in protecting their property (broadly construed) from aggression by others. When government oversteps its rightful boundaries by forcibly taking property from some for the benefit of others, then it becomes the aggressor.

When people vote for candidates or laws with demonstrated capacity for committing such aggression, then those voters become partners in crime. When they cast their ballots, those individuals are pulling levers of aggression. They become principals of violence who, by casting their ballots, are contracting with strong armed agents to do their bidding.

Under such circumstances, is there a case for casting a vote? If the situation involves voting for a candidate who sponsors less aggression than another candidate (i.e., the lesser of two evils), then the answer is no. Voting for a candidate who promises aggression against a minority of people is still employing offensive force. Greater good accounting does not suffice.

In some cases, however, it may be possible to vote for pushing government back toward its proper scope in a peaceful manner. Although they are rare, candidates occasionally surface with capacity to shrink government without side helpings of aggression. One can also vote against initiatives such tax levies in order to decrease the degree of forcible appropriation of property in the system.

Beyond those few cases of voting with peaceful profiles, "get out and vote" involves securing the services of political agents to act aggressively against others.

Cooper's Road

"Insanity is just a state of mind."
--Captain Benjamin Franklin 'Hawkeye' Pierce (M*A*S*H)

Interesting note that James Fenimore Cooper. Cooper, one of America's novelists, lived during the early populist movement in American history. Cooper was quick to recognize the dangers of majority rule. He also understood the proper definition of equality in the political context.

Many of his thoughts appeared in the American Democrat, Cooper's political essay first published in 1838. In it, Cooper noted that democracy defined as majority rule threatened the unalienable rights recognized by our founding ancestors unless strict limitations were placed on what majorities were permitted to decide. That, of course, was a primary purpose of the Constitution.

He also correctly saw equality in the political sense: equal treatment under the law. All men are created equal in that they are all born with rights to life, liberty, and property. No one is legally permitted to forcibly interfere with those interests as long as they are peacefully pursued.

Force is not legitimate when applied to achieve equality of condition. Government's role is to help people protect themselves against offensive force. Government is not the Great Redistributor.

James Fenimore Cooper joins William Faulkner on these pages as American writers who got it.

Legitimizing Plunder

You, telling me the things you gonna do for me
I ain't blind, and I don't like what I think I see
--Doobie Brothers

In this recent missive concerning forcibly taking from some for the benefit of others, the always insightful Walter Williams makes this observation about democracy:

"A majority consensus does not does not make acts that would otherwise be deemed immoral moral."

Indeed. Many people like to use majority rule to legitimize plunder. Robbing a person on the street is deemed illegal. But forcibly taking people's property indirectly via strong armed tax collectors that have been approved by majority vote is deemed legal.

In this way, democracy becomes an instrument of offensive force.

Democracy and Diversity

You declared you would be three inches taller
You only became what we made you
Thought you were chasing a destiny calling
You only earned what we gave you
--The Who

Many proponents of democracy, defined as a social decision-making process where decisions are made according to the wishes of the majority, also claim to support diversity, defined as acceptance and respect for differences among people. However, these two concepts are clearly incompatible.

Democracy promotes sameness and compliance as the will of the majority is imposed on all. Differences between people are not respected, but ignored and repressed. Democracy is a collectivist concept.

Diversity, on the other hand, promotes innovation and creativity as people are free to pursue their interests unencumbered by the wishes of the dominant coalition.

Democracy is consistent with despotism and tyranny while diversity is consistent with liberty.

Liberty vs Democracy

And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgment of all wrong
They decide
And the shotgun sings the song
--The Who

Consistent with the thread developed on these pages, Prof Williams argues against democracy as an ideal, or even desirable, system for organizing human conduct. The ideal system, as Jefferson observed, is one that upholds man's natural rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Contrary to popular belief, "liberty and democracy are not synonymous and most often are opposites."

Quotes from Madison, Randolph, Adams, and Hamilton clearly demonstrate our founding ancestors' understanding of democracy's threat to freedom. In Federalist #10, for example, Madison observes, "Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."

The proper role of government is to protect man's inalienable rights from invasion--not to infringe upon them. The founders clearly understood that "because the essence of government is force, and force is evil, government should be as small as possible."

Their resulting framework was not a democracy. The design was a federal republic. In fact, the word "democracy" does not appear in our founding documents. Limited powers were enumerated for central government along with a design to check power among the branches.

Changes to the design were not to be made by majority vote. Instead, supermajorities such as 2/3 congressional approval and 3/4 state ratification to pass constitutional amendments were required.

The intent of these measures was to support rule of law--durable law. Not discretionary rule of democracy that changes with the reigning dominant coalition.

Democracy and Minority Rights

Kreese: What's the matter? The boy can't take care of his own problems?
Miyagi: One to one problem, yes. FIVE to one problem, too much ask anyone.
--Karate Kid

Laughable statement uttered this morning on the radio by a well known political analyst (paraphrased): The definition of democracy is not majority rule but respect for minority rights.

This person is either delusional or hopes that listeners are stupid.

Democracy is in fact majority rule--the process of putting majority opinion into law. It is an expression of positivism. If a group can conjure the majority of votes, then what this group says, goes. Why? Because they control the government agents who tote the guns.

By definition, minority rights are subservient to the whims of the majority in a democracy. In fact, the majority is likely to rationalize aggression on minorities to no end.

Because it grants privilege rather than preserves rights, democracy discriminates against minority interests.

Respect for minority rights requires rule of law. Democracy facilitates rule by discretion--unequal treatment under the law.

Money is Speech

"This paper will fight for progress and reform. We'll never be satisfied merely with printing the news. We'll never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by predatory wealth or predatory poverty."  
--Ed Hutcheson (Deadline U.S.A.)

In its McCutcheon v Federal Election Commission ruling last week, the Supreme Court struck down aggregate contribution limits to political campaigns.

The majority opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts viewed federal law that prevented donors from giving a maximum contribution to more than 10 candidates as an unconstitutional violation of First Amendment rights. Roberts wrote:

"Congress may not regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics, or to restrict the political participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others."

Roberts correctly observed that influence is a "central feature of democracy" because constituents support candidates who "share their beliefs and interests."

Stated differently, influence drives political systems where majority vote rules.

The logical question to those who favor restrictions on campaign contributions is why should only monetary contributions be regulated? There are other ways to buy political favor.

For instance, why not regulate the editorial contributions made by media companies and other entities toward political campaigns? After all, large media efforts that favor certain candidates drown out the voice of the little guy on blogs and elsewhere. Surely a slanted piece presented by journalists at large media outlets possess political value for particular candidates. Because of their potential for outsized influence on democratic process, why shouldn't such journalistic contributions be regulated?

As this piece smartly observes, "How can anyone say - as people do say, as if this settles the issue - that 'Money isn't speech' and then, in the same breath, ask for money to spread the word about the danger to democracy posed by [big campaign contributors]? Money spent trying to spread a political message is speech, whether you like the message or not. More money is louder speech, that more people can hear."

As we have frequently observed on these pages, the way to reduce the impact of political influence is to cut off the resource stream available to government. If government had no power to take resources from some for the benefit of others, then the market for political favor withers.