While I often agree with her, & find her arguments cogent even when I disagree, it seems to me that she looks for unintended consequences one step further in the legal than the practical world. This slants the balance-of-possible-failures. It bothers me most in "The Root of All Evil", which is against campaign finance reform. Kaminer says outright "Money makes speech possible.", and is mocking the argument that "Money isn't speech", but those two statements aren't really opposites. Money amplificiaton can also make speech inaudible, much more effectively than unamplified speech can. The ability to add a decadecibel to a deafening din is nearly useless. In fact, I think most of her argument against campaign finance reform rests on the argument that campaign finance has always been crooked, which is an annoying copout. Every improvement has to be made for the first time once. Most improvements have to be made from scratch several times. You'd have to prove it was impossible to improve to show that it wasn't worth trying.
The last paragraphs of this essay are strong on practical as well as legal bad results. (If public groups can't buy airtime, then all the bloviation goes to the owners of the networks, who are usually the kind of concentrated money interest campaign finance reform was trying to counterbalance.) This still doesn't convice me that the campaign finance reform laws are in principle bad so much as that they're being undercut by the concentration of media ownership, which is another place where the free exercise of one big lump of money reduces the ability of many people to speak and be heard.
ISBN: 0-8070-4411-3
So wrote clew in
History (21st c.).