Agreeing with Democrats...Partly!

It's rare that I agree with Congressional Democrats but they are almost getting it right relative to their latest move with respect to restricting companies that received TARP funds from making political donations. I say "almost" because their position only applies to companies but not to the unions. As anyone reading my previous posts knows, I believe unions should be on the same basis as corporations. And, of course, I would go much further by outlawing corporate and union contributions...TOTALLY! Only quaiifed voters should be able to make contributions to candidates for whom they can vote.

Why Donors Donate

Why do donors donate? In the case of unions and corporations the gifts have strings attached. Neither of these are altrusitic entities seeking the greater good. If you believe they are, I have a bridge I want to sell you! Unions and corporations donate so they can get something from the candidate if elected. If you don't believe me, look at how many donors give funds to both candidates. That's known as "covering you bets" where I come from. Someone might say that all they want is the candidate's ear. Well, I can guarantee you they don't want his ear so they can tell him how much they love him!

No PAC's, No Bundling!

In a "no limits, full disclosure" world, tracing contributions is critical. Consequently, all contributions must be made by individuals, that is "qualified voters." That rules out contributions by PAC's and there should be no more "bundling" where a contribution's origin gets lost.

No Union Contributions

A very high percentage of union political contributions are made to Democrats and while it may be true that more than half of union members vote for Democrats, it is highly unlikely that it is in the same proportion as the donations. Why should a steelworker in Pennsylvania (who votes Republican) have money deducted from his pay in the form of union dues so that the union can funnel that money to a Democrat running for office in California? It makes no sense! But then no one would suggest our campaign financing laws make sense. With nearly 40% of union members being registered Republicans, it is tantamount to extortion.

If a union believes a candidate's election would be good for the union's membership, it can make that case to the qualified voters who can then personally donate to the candidate. After all, the union knows where its members live and can easily lobby these qualified voters. Of course, the qualified voter/union member might be awakened to the issues and actually donate to a Republican! No union leader wants that to happen.

It's time we stopped this extortion by unions and free the workers from their masters.

No Corporate Contributions

The idea that any corporation should take shareowner money and give it to a candidate is just plain wrong! First of all, why should the corporation take a Pennsylvania (shareowner) widow's money and give it to a candidate in California? Further, why should an election in California be impacted by funds taken from a shareowner in Pennsylvania?

If a corporation believes the election of a candidate would be beneficial to the shareowners and other stakeowners, it is certainly free to make that case to those who are qualified voters since they know where their employees and shareowners live. In that way, the qualified voters can make the determination if the candidate is worthy of support.

There is a parallel case to be made against union contributions but more on that tomorrow...

Financing a Political Party

Some might ask where a political party gets its funds and for what purposes if not to give to candidates. First of all, a party can solicit funds from voters. Secondly, a party could elect to "tax" its candidates' fund raising. After all, aren't politicians good at taxing?

As to a party's need for funds, it can use those for such things as research and policy development but, most importantly, it cannot use them to fund any candidate's campaign. As noted earlier, that would be tantamount to a transfer between states or districts and that is contrary to my "six words."

No Party Transfers

Obviously a political party is not a "qualified voter." Consequently under my six word formula, a political party could not "donate" to a candidate. Allowing a political party to donate would mean that funds collected in one district or state would be transferred to another district or state. That violates the principle of having campaign funds coming only from the candidate's district or state.

Qualified Voters

"Qualified Voters"...only! The right to vote is at the heart of representative government and that right should not be overcome by some other mechanism allowing a non-voter such as a corporation or union to make donations to a candidate or speak on behalf of a candidate. In addition, if one cannot vote for a candidate no donation to that candidate should be permitted. Consequently, a voter in New York could not contribute to a Senate candidate in Florida. Nor could a Florida voter contribute to a candidate for governor in New York. Qualified voters means only those people who can vote in the specific election in which their candidate is running. If we only allow qualified voters to contribute to a candidate, the finances available to candidates would come only from those people who can actually vote for a candidate and the amount of money would reflect the means and desires of the electorate not those of some outside entities that should have no stake in the election's outcome.

No Limits, Full Disclosure

"No limits." Why should anyone be limited in how much they can give to a candidate they believe should be elected? Could a voter buy some favoritism. Perhaps, but not without the politician taking some risk that his or her favoritism will come back to bite them since compliance with the "Full Disclosure" requirement would expose such coziness. At a minimum, the "bribe" would be from a constituent as opposed to a lobbyist or PAC. Is there anyone who believes Representative Charlie Rangel's escapades paid for by some corporations weren't intended to buy his favor? They likely did!

I differ in no way from George Will's position on these two aspects of his seven words.

My Six Words

George Will's seven words almost have it right but I believe my six words provide the right formula to protect our representative form of government. I will cover several principles in subsequent posts. My six words: "No limits, full disclosure, qualified voters."

Before doing so, I would like to comment on the silly notion that giving money is "speech." That notion assumes that the framers were idiots who did not have a command of the English language. Nothing could be further from the truth. "Speech" is the delivery of the spoken word. It's broadest definition could (and should) include delivery of the written word. There is no defensible case to be made that giving money to a politician is "speech." Consequently, the idea that the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech somehow covers campaign donations is just plain wrong.

George Will's Seven Words

George Will has a seven word formula for campaign finance reform: "No limits, full disclsure, no foreign contributions." It's almost right...but not quite.

Basic Premise

The right to vote is so valuable that it should not be overcome by any other force. If we allow, as we have, other forces to sway an election and not reflect the will of the electorate, the very foundations of our representative government are in grave danger. This blog sets out some basic principles that should be put in place to define how campaigns should be financed while preserving the rights of each voter.