The censorship of political campaigns is a key device by which incumbent politicians and parties can propagate their political power. Like all human action, political speech and expression require the allocation of means to ends, and one of the most effective methods of suppressing such expression is to limit the available means through campaign spending limits. Often, this censorship is represented as a "reform" process. In some states (e. g., Georgia), spending limits for opposition candidates are more stringent than those for incumbent candidates, although the political motivation behind campaign regulation is usually more cleverly disguised. In general, incumbent parties and politicians enjoy many natural advantages at the start of a political campaign (especially in a highly interventionist society, as we shall see in Section 5). Consequently, any limitation on campaign spending tends to work to the advantage of those already in power, by ensuring that opposition candidates cannot overcome the advantage of incumbency.

An especially effective device for the propagation of political power is the public subsidization of political campaigns. Candidates opposed to government subsidies on principle, of course, cannot accept such financing and are therefore effectively eliminated from the political process. In particular, public campaign financing permanently averts any potential challenge by parties or candidates with a free-market orientation. The displacement of privately financed campaigns by candidates subsidized by the empowered regime is a significant milestone in the destruction of liberal government, a step which may be irreversible except perhaps by violent revolution.