Who Owns Your Representative? 9

Every election cycle we hear screams and shrieks about all the money going into the election process. President Obama is poised to launch a One Billion Dollar campaign. Instead of standing by and wringing my hands about the rivers of money in our political system, please allow me to say the following.

So what?

Let’s put forth a fundamental relationship:    MONEY = POWER = POLITICS

These three concepts are so intertwined that you can never separate them.  The sooner we recognize this definition as equivalent to the law of gravity in the physical world, the better we can order our lives. Our election funding laws should be predicated on these basic principles.

Instead of restricting what people give to their political candidates, let it go. Let people give as much as they want. After all, this is one of the definitions of free speech. There have to be some conditions, though, and I will try to flesh these out in the following lines.

1.  Allow individuals to give as much to a candidate as they want. No corporate entity, either profit or non-profit, union, association, or other organization is allowed to contribute money to any candidate for any US government office.

2. Individuals contributing to a politician must reside within the political subdivision for which the election is being held.

3. All donations to a candidate’s political campaign must be published on an internet web page within 24 hours of the donation. The donors name, city, county, and state of residence will be disclosed along with the amount.

The most important thing about my plan is that you know who has bought your representative. If the district is a poor district, the Koch brothers cannot make a donation to a candidate if they don’t live there. Likewise, George Soros can buy a President, but can only contribute to a Congressional candidate in the district where he lives.

Is George Soros a US Citizen? Does he reside in the US? Any individual contributing to a candidate may be compelled to demonstrate the requirements for residency of that state, or political subdivision.

My plan may not be perfect. Maybe it would be a good beginning.

9 comments

  1. I think your plan’s fine….but I still believe that the German way of giving all candidates within a certain guideline of popularity the same amount of money to run on makes for a fairer election. And VERY few earmarks or paybacks…no lobbying.
    We could learn a lot from German voting, period.

    ..I think he has a residence or 12 here, though 🙂 I just checked; he is a naturalized citizen.
    The Wikipedia entry is so white washed it’s good for a laugh….so many things about him left out.

  2. Z: I have never like the idea of the government giving political candidates campaign money, My thinking is that if the candidate cannot raise money,then they don’t have a following, anyway.

    KP: Yeah, that train will never get rolling because, to me, it makes too much sense. You cannot separate money and politics. One defines the other. It was no accident that Ben Franklin was the first Post Master. The postal system was the ideal way to distribute his print products.

  3. I honestly believe it is unfair that you have to have millions of dollars to campaign.

    Your rules make perfect sense, but I wouldn’t count on anyone adopting them. Sad, though. It would keep the candidates in check.

  4. My two laws of history when I get to teach the subject to my students:

    1. It always comes down to the money — money and power being the same thing.

    2. Never trust any politician.

  5. But, BOb, that ‘guideline of popularity’ is VERY stringent. They must have been able to show a very high level of popularity; it doesn’t go to any Tom, Dick or Harry who decides he wants to run. I don’t think they have general primaries in Germany but it’s probably the highest people in the party who’s running them who get the money. Maybe only two or four parties.
    Also, in this manner, Germany has plumbers and electricians and teachers in their Bundestag, which I think is a great advantage, a really great one. Just thought I’d let ya know 🙂 (thanks for your support at geeeZ, it meant a lot to me)xx

  6. My rationale in ending limits on individual contributions is that no matter what laws we pass on contribution limitations, the money still tends to appear. How can Obama raise a $Billion from individuals? Easy. Rich individuals have the resources to contribute much more than allowed be going around the system.

    The current law gave birth to hugely funded organizations, funded by super rich people, who found their way around the system.

    I believe my system is more honest, and tries not to assume anything about anybody. I think it is also enforceable, especially by competing political camps that will be watching each other hawk-like for subterfuges.

    As far as popularity goes, if you can get a couple of thousand signatures, you can raise some money, too, for a campaign. Otherwise, what good are all those supporters if they do not put their money on the line?

  7. And obama was the one who squawked the shrillest about ‘special interests’ and lobby groups. Many idiots bought his lies, only to find out later that he was actually their best lap dog.

  8. Hey, MK. Welcome back. I have been missing your blog. Gotta go now to Down Under On The Right Side to welcome you!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s