Posted on 02/17/2002 2:49:11 PM PST by baldy
The “campaign finance problem" has nothing to do with financing of political campaigns. The problem is about corruption, at the highest (and lowest) levels of government in this country.
Otherwise, there is no problem. If somebody wants to see Joe Blow get elected over John Doe, he can give all the money he wants to Joe’s campaign war-chest. And as long as Mr. Bigbucks doesn’t show up at the Statehouse door with his hand out, everybody’s happy.
The truth is though, that under the current system politicians are being bought and paid for all the time by dishonest individuals, corporations, unions and other organizations who want to influence legislation and other governmental activities to gain some advantage. And they do this by making big donations to politicians to help get them elected or otherwise pay them off.
Sometimes what they get back are government “favors,” whether in the form of non-competitive government contracts, government projects (“pork-barrel” items such as airports, highways and bridges, irrigation canals, and dams) or special legislative requirements (such as “prevailing wage” requirements or trade “protection”). Or it might be “tax loopholes” or “special treatment” or “regulatory relief” by government agencies. It’s no surprise at all that market capitalists along with big labor bosses line up to ask for favors that are not free enterprise or that do not represent true collective bargaining. What they get is corporate or union welfare. And all the "hidden agenda" organizations sell their wares like the whores they are. After all, the U. S. Congress alone sits on a pot of $2 trillion. How much more is doled out by State, County and local government entities?
Corruption is the problem, and everybody knows it. Not only that, but it’s getting worse.
What if, however, a very simple law could be enacted that would totally eliminate this type of corruption? A law that would not involve “public financing” of elections (i.e., taking tax money to add to the other ill-gotten gains). Anybody, corporation or group, could give all the money they want to, to any politician or cause they wish.
How would it work? Easy. All donations would have to be made anonymously and in cash. Every politician or political cause would have to have a CPA firm set up like a blind trust to receive its donations. Then you’d find out what politician is actually supported by people (and groups, and corporations). And which ones are crooks, stumblebums, and charlatans.
The NEA has dumbed down our citizenry enough that they believe the stuff the media is piping into their noggins.
Why haven't the courts done so already?
Clinton runs into a fat cat named Rich who is shopping for a pardon. Clinton just needs 8 million dollars for his 1996 campaign. Gimme the 8 mill Bill says to Rich, and at the end of the next term you will get a pardon. Rich says how will you know I gave it? Billy boys says give it and I will figure it out.
Two weeks later the commision calls Clinton and says an unknown doner just gave you 8 million dollars for your campaign. Rest assured Mr Clinton that neighter you or the the American people will never know who this anonimous doner is. Clinton says, "I am willing to pardon the doner for not telling me who he is. I certainly want to follow the law and have zero clues about who is giving me the money."
Clinton hangs up from the commission call just intime to get a call from Rich. Rich says "Did you get 8 million?." Clinton says "I am just going to have to pardon you for what you just did"
I'll bet you are so bright your mother calls you sun.
I think you have an interesting direction. I think there'll be plenty of opportunities for looping holes, tho. Like if a corporation gives money, it would HAVE to disclose it on its own balance sheet or how are stockholders sposed to know where the money's going? Plus if Donor X goes to a $10,000/plate dinner, then you'd have to know they donated $10K, right?
And how does this affect my company running pro-Such-n-So advertisements? Would you inhibit displays of "Sponsored by...." at the end of each commercial?
You're headed in a good direction, but there's some glitches.
Man, who peed in your wheaties this morning?
It isn't a bad idea but I think it isn't doable. Also, it does not address the problem of repressing political speech. Organizations will still want to speak out and speaking out takes money. There is no way around that.
James Hogan (in a novel) proposed a constitutional amendment forbidding the practise of economic favoritism through regulation/legislation. If you could show a law or code favored one actor economically over another, it was moot.
Personally I'm with the people who think we should be on Gov't to "follow the constitution". Most of the means through which the public trust are abused revolve around unconstitutional acts and regulations. Combine that with a "No more new laws without getting rid of some old ones" and it's a winner.
For similar reasons, this why intra-state politics in California revolve around the major urban areas. Proportional representation for everything screws the balance of power. If State Senators were elected under the old plan I doubt the state would be so goofy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.