The Silver Bullet - ‘Can’t Vote Can’t Contribute’

8/29/09 | Joe Lynch

[westcoastwillieg]

The Silver Bullet - ‘Can’t Vote Can’t Contribute’

Money has corrupted our political system to the extent that it no linger represents the people but represents the special interests that fund politicians.

One solution to the problem is ‘Can’t Vote Can’t Contribute’.

Simply stated ‘Can’t Vote Can’t Contribute’ means no one can contribute one dime to any politician, political entity or activity who they cannot vote for.

There would be no limit on contributions and they must be placed in the public record as soon as they are accepted.

Violations of ‘Can’t Vote Can’t Contribute’ would be treated as a felony with a mandatory fine and jail term.

In one fell swoop ‘Can’t Vote Can’t Contribute’ eliminates campaign funding that does not come directly from voters and would create politicians who are actually responsive to the voters.

[WVKayaker]

[Cicero]

This sounds to me like another restriction on the honest people and a license for the crooks.

It would work out like McCain-Feingold, which prevented the honest people from expressing their opinions or contributing more than limited amounts, while allowing the dishonest people from doing whatever they wanted.

There used to be a certain balance between Democrat machines and Republican machines. Those days are long gone. The predictable result of a law like this is that the Dems would launder unlimited funds to whoever they wanted, while honest voters and honest politicians would be screwed.

[jessduntno]

Wouldn’t a BETTER soulution be that everybody gets NO MONEY from ANYONE at ANYTIME and are limited to, say, X number of hours of public airtime for ads before run-offs and a series of ten town hall meetings, after being chosen by their respective parties, split between 2 each for each of the final two candidates to speak about their issues and the remaining 6 for open, free style debate - without time limits?

Then they have TWO TERMS of four years (regardless of office) and either go to another public office or go home. No employment in lobbying firms or any government-related enterprises.

AND they are subject to recall at any point by general election in the event of a breach of the law or ethics violations.

[Traveler59]

Good concept, right up until: "There would be no limit on contributions and they must be placed in the public record as soon as they are accepted". This would turn individuals into 'proxy' contributors to the candidates. Of course, the IRS could investigate if an individuals contributions exceed their 1040 adjusted gross income.

- Traveler

[Pilsner]

In one fell swoop ‘Can’t Vote Can’t Contribute’ eliminates campaign funding that does not come directly from voters and would create politicians who are actually responsive to the voters

Yeah. That, or it would reward the party that cheats to make donations to its candidates, and uses hired goons to intimidate people out of contributing to the candidates of the other side, because you have just restricted the donors to the candidate of the other side to a small, well defined geographical area.

[KeepUSfree]

I think you are missing something. One would only be allowed to contribute to campaigns one can actually vote for. In MD, I could contribute to 2 senators, 1 congressman, the PRes & VP.

Places with rich libs can contribute all they want to the libs.... But, more conservative areas wouldn’t be flooded by lib dollars...

[Mr. Lucky]

Ever notice that the cure for every modern problem of government is to restrict the rights of free people just a little more?

[HighlyOpinionated]

Sounds good on paper but wouldn’t fly because I will contribute to people running against the sordid liberals Pelosi and Reid and Specter and the RINO McCain, just to have their undue influence out of DC.

Your good paper idea is what’s going on in DC and has for a hundred years. It looks good on paper, but when it’s actually a law, it’s terrible. Like McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy bills. Sounds good, Doesn’t work as good as it sounds.

[Don Corleone]

I had proposed this to my Congresscritter ‘Phil Crane’ almost 30 years ago. He thought that it would have been shot down as unconstitutional. Of course, now we have no Constitution so who knows?

[misanthrope]

www.50calsilverbullet.com

[paul51]

As fast as they change the rules, they find ways to skirt them. How about one new rule? We hang corrupt politicians. They are a threat to our security, our sovereignty and our way of life and should be treated accordingly

[William Tell]

No, thanks. For those of us trapped in liberal hell-holes populated by worthless RINOs, it is quite sensible for us to donate to many candidates outside our own areas.

From a practical standpoint, it doesn't matter where the pro-gun members of Congress come from as long as we get plenty of them. I intend to help any that I can.

[HighlyOpinionated]

Wouldn’t a BETTER soulution be that everybody gets NO MONEY from ANYONE at ANYTIME and are limited to, say, X number of hours of public airtime for ads before run-offs and a series of ten town hall meetings, after being chosen by their respective parties, split between 2 each for each of the final two candidates to speak about their issues and the remaining 6 for open, free style debate - without time limits?

Then they have TWO TERMS of four years (regardless of office) and either go to another public office or go home. No employment in lobbying firms or any government-related enterprises.

AND they are subject to recall at any point by general election in the event of a breach of the law or ethics violations.

Sounds like a workable plan, but there's no way Congress would pass it because it would be shooting themselves in the stomach.

How about Repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments, returning to the Founding Father's Constitutional decisions and having Corporate Taxes ONLY which will fund the Military, Congress people UNPAID and without any perks, and the State Legislatures appointing the Senate? If they were UNPAID, how many Senators would still be in office 20-50 years straight?

And while we're discussing Congress ~~~ THEY got their income increase but people on Social Security DIDN'T GET A COLA and have to pay more for Part B (Hospital) Medicare. Congress is a bunch of CROOKS, with a few exceptions, very few, who aren't accepting the pay increase.

[William Tell]

paul51 said: "We hang corrupt politicians."

The level of corruption would automatically decrease if we decreased the size and scope of government. But good luck with that.

[Zeppo]

Since when do Libtards play by the rules?

[goldi]

Gee, I e-mailed every congressman in my state, as well as my own, about the healthcare bill and told them if they voted for it, I would contribute to their opponent’s campaigns.

[rockrr]

This would have an unfortunate affect on me. Living in the “deep blue” there is no one here that I care to waste my campaign dollars on. And I refuse to waste it on the GOP. I have, however, spent a great deal of money on candidates in other states where it might do some good.

This would eliminate my ability to that and effectively close my wallet.

Conservatism loses.

[jonrick46]

There would be work around methods to funnel money from the George Soros types to the politicians. One way I can think of is a 501(c)(3)would take money sent from George Soros in Bedford, NY. He has lots of connections:

[Soul of the South]

Simple solution. Replace all current campaign laws with the following:

1) No organization donations (PACS, pools, unions, political parties, etc).
2) Individual donations permitted from US citizens only. Donations must include proof of citizenship, current valid residence, occupation.
3) All qualified donations must be posted on a public website within 24 hours of receipt. Site must be searchable by name, zip code, state. Each individual contributor record must show dates and amounts of all donations.
4) Individual donations have no limit. If the amount of donation is posted on the web, citizens can look up donations and know who “owns” the legislator.
5) Organizations (corporations, unions, law firms, non-profits) cannot give money to individuals for campaign contributions.
6) No contributions or loans from foreign individuals or organizations.
7) Excess campaign money at the end of the campaign will be transferred to the Treasury. No carrying it into retirement or using it for personal expenses.

I agree the amount of money involved in politics is corrupting the process. A huge problem is the lack of transparency as to who is giving the money. Limit contributions to individuals and require the contributions to be made public upon receipt. Any citizen can then see who owns his politician.