Behind much of the support for campaign regulation is the often-articulated claim that wealthy candidates can "buy their way into office." In a representative government, of course, candidates cannot do so literally, since voters must make the final decision at the polls. The extent to which voters will be influenced by spending per se depends on the prevalence of independent thinking in a society. An independent-minded voter bases his or her choice on logic and reason, not on the sheer volume of repeated emotional television appeals. As we have already indicated, such independent cognitive habits are far more widespread in a free-market society. Moreover, even the least independent voter is not a mere robotic victim, but retains the capacity of free choice (p. 2.4:6).

Perhaps, some may contend, censorship should generally be avoided but might nevertheless be desirable in "extreme cases," i. e., to repress ideas deemed especially abhorrent. Even if the censoring authority chooses to exercise its power only in a small number of cases, however, it in effect decides which viewpoints and forms of expression shall be suppressed and which shall be deemed acceptable. If some expression is censored, then in effect all expression is subject to censorship. Once the principle of censorship has been accepted, it becomes all-pervasive, because there remains no objective basis for delimiting its application (cf. pp. 3.10:13-6). One can no more exercise "limited censorship" than one can become "a little bit pregnant."