Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould federal political candidates have to disclose the means by which they raised their money - by mail, online, in person, etc.?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| No | 15% | 30 votes | Total: 196 votes | |
| Yes | 85% | 166 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesI don't see why they should. On the other hand, I don't see why they wouldn't want to.
Let's put this in a different light. Should political candidates have to disclose whether they received political donations in the mail via U.S. Post, FedEx or UPS?
Wouldn't that be, well, dumb?
Actually, "pointless" is the word that comes to my mind.
Yet, here we're asking a similar question - by what means? In today's culture, we have so many means of correspondance. Personally, I've given to candidates over the phone, through mail, AND online - I'm comfortable doing any one of those.
We don't need to know this.
Still - that's not to say it's not interesting. And that goes to the second part of my answer. I really dont' see why candidates wouldn't want to disclose that info.
If Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney raised a gazillion dollars on the Internet, why not brag about their savvy with the new media?
The same with personal appearances. If everyone who hears Fred Dalton Thompson or Barack Hussein Obama in person has the urge to cough up $800 on the spot - that should be a point of pride for the candidate. Those who know him like him.
If you read my other articles, you know that I respond to a lot of these questions like "Should so-and-so BE REQUIRED to do such-and-such" or "Should so-and-so BE ALLOWED to do such-and-such."
When it comes to those types of questions, you've got to think - WHO is requiring somebody or allowing somebody to do such and such? The government. Right? Well - it takes government time and money to make things like that happen. Plus, there's a certain precedent that's established every time we think the government should oversee another area.
As it is, there are all sorts of federal regulations on elections. Our taxpayer dollars can be put to much better use (educating kids, protecting the border, etc.) than splitting hairs about how political candidates raised funds.
Learn more about this author, J.R. Anthony.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
When a person steps forward to represent his fellow citizens in the governing of their common interests, they become a "public" entity. In a democracy, "public" means transparent to all. There is no more critical need for forthrightness and honesty than in the realm of public perusal of political campaign contributions.
Disclo sure of the means by which a candidate for public office is acquiring campaign funds and, thereby, the nature of his or her support, is vital to the democratic backbone of informed voting. The Doctrine of Transparency cannot assure a level playing field for all candidates, but it can guarantee that, if we apply the other necessary ingredients - attentiveness, inquisitiveness, commitment... - then equality in opportunity is within grasp. So long as the sources of funding and, by extension, the names of those who would influence candidates in their favor, are easily accessible to the public, then decision-making will not be made entirely in secret.
It is not, however, enough to merely require this kind of integrity in service. Perception, as we all know is 99% of reality. Candidates need to go the extra mile to protect against even the perception of iniquitous behavior. Though not a candidate, when Justice Scalia played golf with VP Cheney just prior to deciding a case in which Cheney was a stakeholder, Scalia violated this supreme trust in the integrity of our system of government. He violated the intent and spirit of the laws by allowing perception to rule (regardless of what was actually happening between these two men). Candidates for public office must be held to the highest standards and we must judge by what we see. Any behavior that can be construed as impropriety is also a violation of the Doctrine of Transparency, so rather than hide their actions, they must govern their interactions so that they genuinely model the highest regard for the equality of all of their constituents.
Governm ental secrecy kills democracies and one of the secrets elected representatives of the people like to keep is of those who are supporting them and with how much money. Politicians and government officials do not resist this democratic necessity because they want to hide the influence of all their grassroots donors who give $5-$100. They want to hide this information so that the grassroots donors and voters will not know that the privileged and wealthy are buying their votes; that the fields of democracy are not level. What politician is immune to donations in the thousands of dollars from single sources? That kind of money jumps out and demands special attention, attention the average citizen cannot equal.
In our march to evolve the highest form of democracy, candidates and office-holders, elected, appointed and/or hired, must disclose the sources and the amounts of gifts and donations. With earnest and honest efforts to be fully transparent, our political process will have a better chance to succeed.
Learn more about this author, Michael Burgwin.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- US Elections (Other)
- Is the US primary election season too long?
- Should there be spending limits on political campaigns?
- Should religion play an important role in choosing presidential candidates?
- Should Senators resign their seats to run for President?
- Is eighteen too young to vote?
- Should senators and congressmen have a term limit?
