Politics, News & Issues >
US Elections (Other)
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould there be limits on contributions to political campaigns by individuals?
Results so far:
| Yes | 71% | 60 votes | Total: 85 votes | |
| No | 29% | 25 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesIdeally, we would go to 100% public financing, since we all know that contributions always come with strings attached. This would eliminate the implication of quid pro quo, since elected officials by law represent all constituents. When money or special benefits are involved, it is de facto bribery. It is unreasonable to expect that candidates receive large sums of money and not feel some compunction to listen more closely to the donor's opinions and desires. In order to ensure that public financing only goes to serious candidates, there could be a requirement for the candidate to collect a specified number of signatures of voters registered in the district (5,000 for Congress; 10,000 for Senate, etc.)
If this idea is too radical, then at least there should be no contributions except by individuals registered to vote in the district and the mandatory limit should ensure that there is no whiff of bribery or quid pro quo. The maximum amount should be measured in hundreds of dollars. Obviously, that would require government matching funds, probably at a multiple of the private contributions.
It is patently absurd that organizations, such as corporations, unions and associations, such as PACs and others, are permitted to contribute to campaigns when they cannot vote. This causes power to be gathered and exercised by organizations, not voters. Perhaps, the organizations should be permitted to campaign for issues, but not candidates. That way they could still be involved in the issues involved in the elections, but not the direct choice between candidates.
Allowing organizations to contribute funds to candidates' campaigns simply allows for corruption. The difference between campaign contributions and bribery is a thinly veiled technicality. It is unrealistic to expect that contributions do not affect the candidates' positions or actions. We all know that is not true.
It is no wonder that candidates pander to special interests to the detriment of the nation and constituents, when those special interests can determine the outcome of elections by well timed and well placed contributions. In America, we have the best politicians that money can buy!
When the Constitution was written, the government had very limited resources, so it could not have afforded public financing of elections. Things have changed dramatically since then. This is one area in which we can improve on the founding father's original plan. There can be no doubt that they could not have anticipated how expensive political campaigns would become and how influential well organized contributors could become. Often, out of district organizations can funnel financing to defeat a candidate that they target, something AIPAC is famous for doing.
In many cases, organizations representing the interests of only 2% of voters or less can determine the results by buying elections. Some lobbying groups contribute to all major candidates so that regardless of the winner, he is beholden. As a result, there is "corporate welfare". Decisions on spending government funds are often made in total disregard for the best interests of the voters. Theoretically, the voters can vote the crooks out, but big money can buy media to get its message out. It does not always win, but it has a daunting success rate.
America needs clean elections and that means elections not determined by special interests. Our system has been perverted by big money politics. It requires a major overhaul so that once again our government can become of the people, by the people and for the people. At present, our government mainly represents the interests of the power elite, the few over the many. The Bush/Cheney White House and its policies is emblematic for this trend, although it is by no means the only example. The problem is equally serious for both major parties. As the 10th Amendment says "Power to the People!"
Learn more about this author, Robert C. Sage.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
THE CURRENCY OF "POLITICAL COMPROMISE"
The dictionary defines COMPROMISE as "a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by the adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands".
Our legislative structure defined by the US constitution was brought about by The Great Compromise between New Jersey and Virginia striking a bargain between the protection and rights of small states and large states
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 allowed slave states and free states to continue to coexist when neither side could get what they wanted.
Politics is often described as "the art of compromise", an art that has given way to the politics of confrontation where domination by the majority of the moment is the only acceptable outcome. This is in spite of the fact that polls show a large majority of Americans look favorably on politicians capable of compromise.
I believe there are two reasons for this. The first is the sound bite sports journalism approach that loves a good scrap with a media that both sides believe is biased. A successful host of a political show is one who is able to interject emotions into a discussion of issues by people of different views by becoming a protagonist.
The second, and more deadly reason is an arcane bunch of rules known as campaign finance laws that skirt first amendment issues by prescribing how much and who can pay for "free speech". The effect is to funnel campaign financing through PAC's, each with it's own parochial agenda and to tether beneficiaries of their largess (campaign candidates) to these agenda.
For reference, Wikipedia defines a Pac as follows:
In the US, a political action committee, or PAC, is the name commonly given to a private group, regardless of size, organized to elect or defeat government officials or to promote legislation. Legally, what constitutes a "PAC" for purposes of regulation is a matter of state and federal law. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, an organization becomes a "political committee" by receiving contributions or making expenditures in excess of $1,000 for the purpose of influencing a federal election.
Straying from their marching orders by a candidate will result in a loss of contributions and, at worst, the financing of opposition primary candidates.
When power is divided between Democrats and Republicans, how does any legislation get passed if compromise is not an option? That's simple - you literally rob from Peter to pay Paul. Buying a vote with a $20,000,000 earmark carries less risk than modifying your position to accommodate an opposition point of view. That's less than a dollar from every household in America so who is going to notice. Of course to paraphrase the late Senator Dirksen, $20 mil here and $20 mil there can add up to real money and with all those votes to be purchased in a legislative session, what's a poor congressman to do?
The result of this system is unabated corruption regardless of who is in the majority and failure to take care of America's business in a manner that would raise poll results for approval of government above the thirty percent range.
Why do we need to live this way? It's simple. If you build a factory to make cell phones, it is never going to make an automobile. It is the system that has given us Pelosi's instead of Hubert Humphrey's, that has given us Delay's instead of Dirksen's and has filled our legislative halls with a few unprincipled bosses dominating a passive herd who are there for the perks.
The first step toward legislative sanity is to replace all campaign finance regulations with one rule: post every contribution on the internet within twenty four hours or suffer a punishing penalty. Reporters and opposition campaign staff will most assuredly identify shady dollars.
This will open communication between voters and their elected representatives. I am tired of the fact that Alaskan caribou have more influence than I do. Those who don't get it will be gone.
Wouldn't it be nice, just once on a Sunday morning talk show, to hear legislator A to say to legislator B, " I'm willing to look at opening up more territory for oil exploration if you will help me impose higher mileage standards on auto manufacturers".
Learn more about this author, Wayne Mclaughlin.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- US Elections (Other)
- Are Democrats raising more money online than Republicans because they are more popular or Web-savvy?
- Which is more effective for political campaigns: Debates or town meeting formats?
- Should Congress have the power to vote no-confidence and remove a US president from office?
- Should photo identification be required to vote?
- Should members of Congress be allowed to add earmarks to appropriations bills?
- Is eighteen too young to vote?
