Facepalm

There are some ads where Democrats are accusing Republicans from accepting campaign donations that originate from foreign sources.

It would appear that some organizations that have accepted foreign funds have indeed contributed to some politicians.  Under the campaign finance laws, this is perfectly legal as long as the donor keeps track of the foreign funds separately and has enough money from domestic sources to cover the donation.  The Democrats should not be throwing stones in this glass house, I think.

At any rate, this is an example of how our laws are messed up.  Two economic things are important here.  Opportunity cost and fungibility.

Money is fungible.  A dollar is a dollar.  What that means here is that every dollar I can't spend on donations is a dollar I have to spend elsewhere.  What we have here is I am allowed to spend foreign bucks on the rent, but not for campaign contributions.  OK.  This law means that I have somewhat less to spend on candidates, but doesn't really slow me down much.

This is the core of opportunity costs.  A dollar spent on the rent is a dollar I can't spend at the movies; and vice versa.

Organizations who accept foreign funds can use those funds to pay for non-campaign items, freeing up other monies for contributions.

It's kabuki!  There's no real differentiation between fungible items and by saying that pile is foreign and the other domestic you are not changing things one iota!

Plus there have to be a billion ways to change your filthy foreign lucre into pure domestic coin of the realm.  Do these laws encourage or discourage this?  If they encourage this kind of laundering, is it better to have an openly foreign contributor or a domestic contributor in name only?

These laws just don't make sense and aren't really keeping the money from getting to the politicians.