We have all heard about the incredible amounts of money political candidates raise these days inorder to seek office. For the Presidential campaign season of 2008, it is understood by all that the minimum "entry fee", i.e. how much it will take to run, starts at $100 million. This election will be the first that will end up with the candidates, all told, having spent over $1 billion. In this campaign cycle, you can bet that money talks. Some candidates have already spent over $10 million dollars, and some of them have no real reserves to speak of. Despite the fact of extremely high name recognition, candidates such as John McCain and Bill Richardson are said to be broke and therefore unable to compete.
Ironically, Senator McCain is one of the three prime sponsors of the so-called McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, which had as its third main sponsor, newcomer to the Presidential sweepstakes, former Senator Fred Thompson. The big deal that was made about this campaign finance reform was the idea that money was becoming too important in national elections, and this reform would decrease the need for big money donors and help to restrict the corruption that always seems to hover around these large money donations.
That would have been great if the idea had any chance of working, but as we just saw, the need for cash just keeps on getting greater. How this is going to stop corruption from entering the hallowed halls of congress is not exactly clear, but then again, when do the politicians ever do anything straight forward and upfront? One of the other objectives of this supposed reform was the way in which it would put a limit on the "527's", those organized groups of special interests that get a particular IRS designation that allows the government to regulate how much they spend for individual candidates. The most controversial aspect of this bill places restrictions on political advertising 60 days before an election. This particularly obnoxious part of this phony bill is a smack in the face to our First Amendment right to free speech, specifically, political free speech. Thomas Jefferson probably turned over in his grave when he heard about this! Of course, in the world of modern Washington politics, free speech has been turned on its head. While we restrict political speech, we go to great lengths to allow pornographers to peddle their filth openly on the internet, and give political platforms to insane dictators like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahminejad to spew out hatred and violence at a prestigious university, in this case, Columbia.
As for a common sense approach to political contributions that everyone could live with, well, you won't hear any such thing from any of these elite, do-nothing, let's get re-elected, power hungry, partisans from either party! They are all too tied to the party machines, the PACs, the corporations, and the corrupt money grubbing lobbyists. Like just about all that they do, they will tinker around the edges, obfuscate what they really are doing, and to be sure, they will once again ignore the will of the people who would love to have some order brought to the process and an end to the influence peddling that goes with the money!
One of the newest ideas of the elites is a scam called "public financing". This new gem from the elites is probably the worst idea ever, in as much as it will definitely put large obstacles in the way of independent candidates such as myself. There will be obscure rules, hard to meet requirements, and the always thorny question of just exactly who decides who gets how much money. I guarantee that this idea is not being promoted for the benefit of the people and the nation. This clever ruse will only serve to help the mainstream, two major party candidates and keep out the upstarts and interlopers who would dare to challenge this virtual lock on power held by these elites. Any such legislation is going to be a disaster for freedom and a boon to the power structure that already exists. Bet on that!
There is a common sense solution to the financing of political campaigns, and it isn't complicated, its fair, and it is entirely workable. It would involve three simple rules, as follows:
1. Any CITIZEN ELIGIBLE TO VOTE can contribute up to $500 to any candidate of their choice (that includes themselves), multiple candidates if they so desire, and also the main political party they wish to identify with.. Why only $500? The simple reason is that most people probably cannot afford to give much more than that. Only the rich can give in the multiple thousands. If we keep the contribution level at that reasonable $500 mark, we will limit the amount of influence any one person could have just because they are rich. As an example, a wealthy couple could each donate $500 to their favorite candidate, and $500 to their party, for a total contribution of $2000. This is not a lot of money to buy excessive influence and is not too far above what the less well off citizens would give. The party may use its received contributions in the general election to promote their candidate.
2. Special interest groups such as: unions, corporations, 527's, political action committees (PACs), and any other type of group you can possibly think of, will not be allowed to contribute any money or "in kind" activity, period!!! In other words, politicians will have to go directly to the people to make their case, and if the people are buying what they say, they will contribute. Organizations of any kind are not citizens eligible to vote, so they should not be allowed to donate anything. Unions or 527's can encourage their members to donate money to any candidate they feel would best represent their interests. Inorder to do this, they can be allowed to mail out to their members a newsletter describing the position of the group's leaders and why they feel candidate A would be the person to support. This newsletter would be restricted to 100 pages, cannot include signs or bumper stickers, or any advertising or promotional items of any kind. It should be limited to information appropriate to the group's mission and only be allowed to be done once.
3. All left over money that the candidate or the party did not spend can be kept by the party for continued operational expenses between election years, or for use in the next election cycle. Otherwise, it should be given to the Social Security Trust Fund to help cover the shortfall created by the politicians who robbed the money to begin with.
These three simple rules make absolute sense no matter how you look at them. They keep the politicians close to the people they are supposed to be representing, and they eliminate the corruption that comes with the big donors of all stripes who are such a corrupting influence on our otherwise totally honest politicians. Common sense and a clear, straight forward approach to problem solving are not traits found in the elites who have set themselves up as an aristocracy to rule over us. As President however, I will pursue common sense as the main ingedient in all that we do, and I will push for concrete campaign finance reform according to the formula I just laid out.
Why should we accept anything other than that as a way to finance campaigns unless there is some ulterior motive. The two parties seek power above all things, and that is the reason they have not put forth any real reforms. You know it and they know!
|
|
