{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02330293819655522, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.586666666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Democratic Paradox of Campaign Finance Reform

Campaign finance reform rests on a centralfear: that political actors will convert economic advantage into political power. However, thisfear assumes a failure of normative democratic theory. If voters think through political decisions in the way democratic theory assumes-by exercising informed, careful, independent judgment-economic inequalities among candidates should make little difference to the outcome of elections. Reform, then, is premised on doubt about voters'-or at least some voters'-civic capabilities. This is the democratic paradox of campaign finance reform. This article reveals this paradox and traces similarities between campaign finance reform and other types of regulation of the political process-some attractive and some not. It concludes that the paradox is unavoidable and, although discomforting, should be made transparent. For only by confronting our democratic shortcomings can we hope to overcome them.