Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| No | 92% | 120 votes | Total: 130 votes | |
| Yes | 8% | 10 votes |
Campaign Funds
Once someone donates to a campaign, the politician enters into a partnership. The relationship is with the politician and not with his family. A small window exists during the campaign process for family to be involved and compensation becomes appropriate
On the Campaign Trail
While a politician is on the campaign trail, he might want to hire family members and the family member might have the identical interest as all supporters because of personal view of the person for the office. In addition, voters like to see family members on the campaign trail. This ability to grant jobs serve the voters by seeing the people who made the major impact on the person and whether they support their family, but as the campaign comes to the end the connection should end. The family member status needs to move into the background.
Employment for the Best
Politicians need to hire the best available for their offices and hiring family members places that in doubt. The taxpayers fund the salaries of office staff so they should have the most qualified employees without bias and all citizens should have access to the position. There already is cronyism, which occurs indirectly or maybe directly. A lot of access to government jobs occurs from whom you know not what you know. Hiring family members hiring blurs the situation
It might be that the faith in a family member's ability might cloud ones view of other abilities. A more experienced employee might exists but does not get consideration because the family member completes the task in a possibly mediocre means. Is the citizenry getting the best for their money?
Lobbying
The family members have the ear of the politician. The politician may have inspired the employee and the family member helped develop the issue on the campaign trail, but after election, they need to be step back. The law making experience needs to be between elected officials, staff members and cabinet members. The lobbying rules apply for family member and politicians need care to avoid conflict of interest.
Campaign Funds
The campaign fund is over and the accounts have balances. A reasonable politicians need to place these funds to benefit future campaigns or to support campaigns of individuals with similar political points of view. Family members should not factor into the disposal of the balances. Some states require that a nonprofit state where there funds will go if the nonprofit disbands. This might offer the solution. Public disclosure paperwork can specific where the funds can go and the parties might set up a unique fund. The fund will be where politicians can dispose of excess funds and the funds dispersed evenly between future campaigns.
Family members may support the election of another, but their access to the ear should end there. Campaign funds and offices were in support of the individual in service to the citizenry.
Learn more about this author, Kris Kennedy.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
I heard Fred Thompson make a good point the other day. He was asked about allegations that his son was paid to do some kind of political work for him.
The former senator said something like, "Of course. I'd rather have him handle it than somebody I don't know."
Good point, sir. Had I not heard it, I'd probably be on the "no" side of this one.
But the fact is right there, staring you in the face - some families do very well working together.
Chances are that you've hired a family business to do something. Maybe you've gone to a family-owned restaurant, had your car taken care of at a family-owned garage, or had your roof repaired by a father-and-son team.
Politics is business. Plain and simple. Why discriminate against politicians?
The good thing about a campaign is that it's right out there in the open who gets paid for what. So, if you go to give money to a politician, and you don't like the fact that his or her son or daughter is on the staff, it's your choice to hold back your funds.
And just because YOU would hold back your funds, there's no reason - except for your own conceit - to force everyone else to do the same thing.
The worst thing to do is to pass a law restricting it.
People on the "no" side of this debate - If the father is a politician, and the son is a political activist by trade, you're effectively saying the son can't work for the father?
That's not fair. In fact, it's to the detriment of a campaign! Who's going to know his father's policies better than the son, who was raised with the same beliefs?
Would it have been wrong if John Kennedy had hired Ted Kennedy to be on his staff? They're both gifted politicians (can't deny that, no matter how much I disagree with Teddy's policies). What? You want some kind of law to keep them apart, just because they're related?
Makes no sense.
Learn more about this author, J.R. Anthony.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.