Politics, News & Issues >
US Elections (Other)
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould members of Congress be prohibited from raising money from people outside of their district or state?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 79% | 37 votes | Total: 47 votes | |
| No | 21% | 10 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesShould members of Congress be prohibited from raising money from people outside their district? That is a tricky question, and while you would think that members of Congress should be able to raise money from wherever they can get it, you have to remember that money is what makes Congress go. Money equals influence, and so when you limit money, you limit the influence that money has to people that are being represented in a particular district.
If you were a Yankees fan, would you want the owner of the Red Sox going around trying to raise money from your fans? Of course not, and that is the same thing that is happening if a representative is going around raising money from people that they don't even represent. When someone represents your district, they represent your values, they represent the issues, and needs of the community. Your representative is there to fight for you, and not for someone in another district.
Fundraising takes time away from important duties, and fundraising in your own district takes enough time. Imagine then the extra time it takes to commit to fundraising in another area. Is that fair to those you are representing that you are taking up more time to raise funds then to working on the issues at hand?
Remember that not all districts are created equal, and not all districts have the same resources. According to opensecrets.org it was stated that people in the richer suburbs of Rochester, NY gave ten times as much money as the average person in the state of New York. If that information can be found out just by spending five minutes at a website, surely most politicians would be keen to that as well. If a politician is looking to raise some cash, just go to where the givers are.
The problem with raising funds from outside your own district is that you can essentially get money from anyone. According to MAPlight.org, 79 percent of funds raised in congressional races come from outside the district of which the candidate is running. More astonishing is that the top two sources of outside funds are Washington D.C and Virgina, since it is close to Washington D.C. Two other big fund raising areas are Los Angeles, and New York City.
Rahm Emanuel raised 98.6 percent of his funds outside of the fifth district of Illinois where he served since 2003. More than 76 percent of that was raised outside of Illinois. Not surprisingly he is now Chief of Staff for Barack Obama, and he is there because of his high profile across the nation. It begs the question though, of why be in the House of Representatives if your major goal is to go and have success nationwide?
Seeing how New York City raises so much money for people in Congress, what does that do to the people of New York state? It puts a limit to how much influence the upstate has on its own politics. New York City, and the money, and the power that they have politically, is a major reason why Gov. David Patterson won't increase taxes downstate. Instead, he is taxing soda, and making sure that he is politically sound downstate.
The facts speak for themselves, and they say that essentially money talks. Whoever is giving the money to the politicians tends to have the biggest influence over that politician. The influence over a representative should be controlled by those the representative is leading. While there is no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to build a nationwide profile, it should be built by good works while in office, not with successful lobbying.
Learn more about this author, Cody Hodge.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
The Politics of Freedom
I am a member of the National Organization for Women. There is a chapter in Oklahoma, but I am not a member of that chapter. I currently live in Oklahoma, but not in the region where the Oklahoma NOW chapter is located. Having learned the hard way how local politics work and just how bad things can get, I will not ever be a member of the Oklahoma NOW chapter.
Here's why: If I, in the best interest of myself or my children, write something which someone locally doesn't like, they make my life hard. This problem could reach the Oklahoma NOW chapter. The local problems which are just basically mutilating my life and effecting my children and grandchildren, are not the fault of NOW and why stir the pot? Therefore, my association with NOW is through the New York City chapter. The headquarters.
I will be sending money to NOW in New York City.
The bicameral quality of politics in this country is not a simple black and white monomial equation. It is complex. For instance, there might be one member of Congress who agrees with me on certain issues, but that one person is from Ohio. Perhaps that person is attempting to do something that will positively effect this country and I want that person to succeed because I care about this country. If I am blocked from sending finances to that person, would that not undermine the goal of America?
While this same scenario could possibly involve some evil intentions, this is why the first amendment is so vitally important. This is why it is so vitally important that American's become as literate as possible.
In other words, should I be held accountable for the intellectual lack of others? Is that not dehumanizing and demoralizing? Yes, it is. Why does it have to be that way? The continuous and methodical psychological destruction of the young. I do a little socializing (anonymously) on a chat site. What I have noticed is that people are constantly attacked for WHAT they think. I'm not talking about someone being vulgar and being called on it, I'm talking about the attempt to shut someone up because they are not a neo-conservative or very sensitively liberal.
What if a member of Congress from say, Florida, is running on a platform of literacy and is facing a huge block by others in several states? Those who want to continue to control and run things? Would it not be beneficial that I would be able to send funds to that person in the best interest of the country?
If anything, this seperateness is what kept Jim Crow alive for so long and it is what causes generational poverty in some areas by ensuring protection for sycophant systems which have over many decades parasitically leeched the lifeblood out of regions, set up some families as "royalty" and enabled the keeping ignorant of otherwise bright people. Those so called "royal" family members found in police departments, schools and other key positions. Not because they were moral, bright and ambitious, but because they are "in the know".
Learn more about this author, G E Barr.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- US Elections (Other)
- Is part of the president's job to inspire the American people?
- Do you agree with the House of Representatives that candidates for Congress shouldn't be able to pay their spouses for campaign work?
- Should there be spending limits on political campaigns?
- Should absentee ballots be allowed in US elections?
- Should photo identification be required to vote?
- Should US senators and Senate candidates start filing their campaign finance reports electronically, as House members and presidential candidates already do?
