If anybody remembers the coverage of the Citizens united case, everybody was saying how foreign money would be coming in and influencing our elections. Irrespective of how everybody here is an anarcho capitalist, I wanted to bring forth the discussion of Bryan Caplans book The Myth of the Rational Voter and it goes as follows;
Most americans vote for the politicians who plunder, lie, and are drunk on power. So by this conclusion, the average voter in the US is irrational. But is it really a bad thing if say for example, some average person living in Spain were to contribute to a candidate by the hypothetical name of Mrs. Jones running for congress? Maybe he believes that if she were to win, that he would benefit? Or how about a business trying to run for congress in a district and if the business wins, then some envoy would represent the business in the congress? Is that possible? Who knows, maybe foreigners are better educated than americans and can give us better candidates perhaps? Maybe at some point, foreigners can bankroll libertarian candidates for public office?
Any thoughts?
Bryan Caplan has also said something to the effect of "Immigration restrictions are a fruitless crime that have caused far more damage that any government intervention" (my paraphrase).
So, Caplan does seem to have a particular bent towards seeing American ideas or American traditions as limited and does show yearnings for a little foreign influence.
I don't see foreign money influencing politics as a problem. If voters are that easily swayed, the problem is with the system not with foreign money. These arbitrary restrictions on campaign financing let us maintain the illusion that democracy is "the will of the people", and not the aggregate of a bunch of easily swayed uninformed peasants who probably vote based on how the candidates look.