Campaign Finance Reform – Insiders Versus Outsiders

24

Should voters in New York be allowed to contribute to local elections in New Hampshire?

Should voters in Concord, NH be allowed to contribute to elections in Manchester, NH?

If you can not vote in an election, why should you be allowed to contribute to that election?

Whom do you want politicians to raise money from, their constituents or people that can NOT vote for them?

Campaign  Finance  Reform should be about Insiders versus Outsiders not hard money versus soft money.

US Citizens – An Example for US Citizens Who Live, Vote and Pay Taxes in the Government District:

Three people contribute to a campaign. One contributes $10,000 worth of time, one contributes $10,000 worth of resources and one contributes $10,000 in cash.

Which has violated campaign  finance  laws?

The person that contributes $10,000 cash. The persons that contributed $10,000 worth of time and resources are making legal contributions. But all three people live under regulations, pay taxes, and earn income in the government district that the candidate represents.

Question:

If you are not going to limit the time and resources a voter may contribute to a candidate, why is it fair to limit the cash a voter can contribute?

Answer:

Time, resources and money are all acceptable and equivalent contributions. There should be no limits on contributions by people who can vote in an election. They pay taxes and live under that government’s regulations so they should be allowed to help select their representative any way they can, with time, money or resources.

Conversely, if a person can NOT vote in an election then they should not be allowed to contribute anything to a candidate, not time, money or resources.

Voting in an election is the key determiner of Insider versus Outsider. If it were not so, we could vote in all 50 states, for 50 governors, 100 senators, etc. Because we are limited to whom we can vote for, we should also be limited to whom we can contribute to. This limit applies to time, money and resources.

An Example for Unlimited Campaign Contributions by Voters in an Election District:

Let’s use New York City as an example. Two billionaires live in New York city and one billionaire we’ll call Michael, wants to be mayor of New York city. Michael contributes $10 million to his own campaign, which is perfectly legal under the current campaign  finance  laws. The other billionaire, we’ll call Donald, does not want to be mayor, but he also does not want Michael to be mayor. He would like to contribute $10 million to another candidate. This is not legal. Why? They both live, work, pay taxes and vote in New York city.

If you are having problems with allowing voters to give unlimited campaign contributions please ask yourself these questions:

If you had a million dollars investment in the stock market, would you pay a stock broker to manage that investment.

If you paid one million dollars in taxes, would you not contribute to a politician to manage your “investment” in government?

If you received one million dollars in government contracts or tax deductions or subsidies, would you not contribute to a politician to manage your “revenue” from government?

If you paid one million dollars to comply with government regulations would you not contribute to a politician to manage your “investment” with the government?

Remember that billionaires can only make unlimited contributions in one election district, the one they can vote in.

Non-voting US Residents:

The Supreme Court has ruled that people that can not vote in the US, but pay taxes to the US can participate in a limited way in elections. This ruling applied to permanent residents who are not yet citizens. The Supreme Court did allow restrictions on the amount of money non-citizens could contribute to an election. They limited their contributions to only the amount of money the person earned in the US.

Question:

Two people make the same amount of money in a government district and pay the same taxes to that government, but only one of them can vote in that district. Should the contributions by the nonresident be limited to the same amount of contributions as the voters in that district? Should nonresidents be banned from making contributions of time and resources because placing a value on it and accounting for it is difficult to impossible?

An Example for People that Can Not Vote in a Government District:

Two people work in an election district, but only one can vote in that district. Think of people who live in one district/state but work in another such as traveling sales people.

Person A represent the average constituent in the election district. He makes $100K, pays $10K in taxes in that election district. He contributes $100 to the election he can vote in.

If Person B who is not a constituent, represents Outsiders who are affected by the government in the election district. He makes $100K and pays $10K in taxes in that election district. He should be allowed to contribute $100 to that district. If person B makes the 10 times the money or pays 10 times the taxes, he should be allowed to contribute 10 times the campaign contribution as person A.

Notice that if voters (Insiders) do NOT makes cash campaign contributions and only contribute time and resources, then person B can NOT make any cash contributions. This means that people who vote in an election determine how much money will be spent on a campaign. It is not the Outsiders, because their contributions are limited. The limitation is calculated by dividing the total Insider donations by the number of constituents in the district.

Conclusion:

People that can vote in an election have unlimited contributions to the candidates running in that district.

Voters determine how much money is spent in an election.

People that can NOT vote in an election but who are affected by that government’s by taxes, laws and regulations have some limited contribution to the candidates running in that district based on what Insiders contribute.

People that can NOT vote in an election are NOT allowed to contribute time or resources to that election.

People that are NOT affected by that government may NOT contribute to the candidates running in that district. Not time, not money and not resources.

Final Question:

So which campaign  finance  laws do you want to live under? The existing hard money and soft money laws with unlimited spending by Political Action Committees? Or would you rather have the campaign  finance  laws regulate contributions based on Insiders versus Outsiders?

Source by David A Leak

· · ·


Related Articles & Comments

Menu Title