I often look at the world through the lens of an insitutionalist. I look to see what political or economic institutions in society will come into play when individuals voluntarily interact, whether in the marketplace or in the political arena.

Here's an example: In many states it is illegal to sell your body as a prostitute, but it is not illegal (or if it is, the penalty is far lower) to make an offer to buy a prostitute's services. If a voluntary action between two individuals is deemed illegal, why punish one side but not the other? This makes sense if nabbing the “john” was much more difficult than nabbing the “call girl,” creating an assymetric allocation of enforcement costs, but that seems very unlikely.

So here’s my concern about our American democracy: I find it interesting that a citizen's vote is not considered private property. If you can characterize politicians as suppliers of public policy and voters as consumers of said public policy, there is clearly a market populated by politicians (call girls) “soliciting” for voters’ (johns’) ballots--pun intended, of course.

Politicians can directly offer prices they are willing to pay for citizen’s votes (see Obama’s tax break calculator) without fear of prosecution. However, a voter can go to jail for offering to sell his vote, as we saw in the infamous case of the e-Bay vote seller.

So my question is this: Is it more ethical to allow for politicians to directly compete for votes by offering "explicit" (snicker!) benefits to individual voters than it is to allow voters to compete to sell their vote to the highest bidder?

Inquiring minds want to know...