Politics, News & Issues >
US Elections (Other)
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould the candidates for president have to disclose their 'bundlers,' the individuals who raise hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, for them?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 87% | 40 votes | Total: 46 votes | |
| No | 13% | 6 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesAlthough this question invites a comprehensive look at all campaign financing, I'll try to stick to the subject and say, in a word, "Yes." Bundling is nefarious in that it is an attempt to increase the political influence of the bundler, while providing some cover for the individuals and corporations who do it. And, if you look closely after every Presidential election, you will see many of these same bundlers getting choice Ambassadorships or other executive branch jobs.
Whenever I write a check to a candidate, I fill out a form which asks for basic information to identify me, and track my contributions to see if I eventually go over the maximum (currently for presidential candidates, this is $2,300 for the primary and another $2,300 for the general election). As long as bundling is legal, a bundler should have to track the same information on anyone he/she collects from and this should be made public information; and the most likely person to publicize the list would be the candidate.
If a corporate CEO is limited to $4,600 contributions, but he coerces his employees to donate lots more and bundles this, his influence on future legislation that affects his business is multiplied. Of course, a business can also contribute separately to a political party or a PAC (Political Action Committee) rather than an individual candidate. There are also committees for the parties, like the DCCC (Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee) or the NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee) which collect contributions. There are a lot of different ways one can contribute more than the allowable, individual amount.
Another type of bundling comes in the form of the so-called "527 groups". Because these groups are not supposed to coordinate their political activities with any candidate (not directly, wink, wink) they are largely unregulated. Many of them have raised and spent millions of dollars attacking a candidate, or pushing an agenda favorable to one side rather than the other. It would be ridiculous to think that candidates don't know who is doing it, and, if helpful, consider rewarding them after their election.
A long range solution would necessitate a discussion about eliminating this process altogether, as well as the merits of public financing, and requiring free TV time for candidates. Until then, I'll stick with the quote from Will Rogers, "We have the best Congress money can buy."
Learn more about this author, Kevin Zahn.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
I was surprised to find myself writing for the 'no' side of this argument; but it's a view based out of the reality of how the current 'democratic' system operates. It would not only be preposterous to think that we could rely on every politican to source out the origin of their contributions; or to report and-or deny contributions based on a persons or groups affiliations, practices, beliefs, etc; let's face it - money is money. If it is given to persuade the policies of that elected official, then it's a whole different story, but anyone who has not been sleeping these past few decades should agree with the power & influence of the all mighty Lobbyists...there in lies the true evil of a failed system.
In today's system, money equals exposure, and exposure adds to the chance of familiarity with the masses; thus resulting in better turn outs with voters. Unless this flawed electoral system is completely overhauled, perhaps even requiring purely public funding at an agreeable set amount to level the playing field; this fact will never change & by being required to investigate & report on all sources of income - vast amounts of resources & energy will have been wasted on how the campaign was run as opposed to what the stance on the issues actually are.
Ever notice how today's main stream media places more priority on poll standings, & how the candidates run the race; rather than what the candidate actually stands for? This is the flaw of a capitalist society that has forgotten about some basic principles beginning with the fact that Government should serve the people, not the other way around.
Until this is changed, it is a mute point to say that all parties need to report their contributors. let's back up a step and ask a more important question; should politicians running for office be subject to a maximum amount of money, advertising, campaigning, etc to allow all candidates the same volume of voice to allow the public make an educated choice rather than an 'influenced by marketing' one?
That's a better starting point in my humble opinion...
Learn more about this author, Walter M Dohrom.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- US Elections (Other)
- Should corporations, unions and trade associations be permitted to write checks directly to politicians and parties?
- Should all US states offer same-day voter registration?
- Should voters have to pass a civics test to be able to vote?
- Should there be limits on contributions to political campaigns by individuals?
- Is it ever too early to run for president?
- Should Election Day be a national holiday?
