Posted on 08/29/2009 10:24:14 AM PDT by 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.
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.
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.
- Traveler
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.
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...
Ever notice that the cure for every modern problem of government is to restrict the rights of free people just a little more?
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.
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?
www.50calsilverbullet.com
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.
The level of corruption would automatically decrease if we decreased the size and scope of government. But good luck with that.
Since when do Libtards play by the rules?
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.
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.
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.
The First Amendment prohibits such restrictions in that money donated to campaigns and political organizations for electioneering is constitutionally protected. Under the philosophy of the Constitution, the evils of special interests, or ‘faction,’ in the language of the founders, are best remedied by more freedom, not less. See Federalist No. 10.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
No, I didn’t miss that. In the past, I have contributed to conservative politicians in other states, when I thought it would be helpful. Conservatives do this as well as liberals.
What I said is that adding more and more rules is counterproductive, because the Democrats are very good at laundering money and contributing under the table. So, all that is accomplished by adding more rules is to restrict what conservatives are allowed to do, while the Democrats aren’t restricted at all.
When was the last time that Democrat fund-raising corruption was punished? Dem corruption is extremely common, but punishment is extremely rare. The Justice Department and the FBI and most of the courts work for the Democrats.
Obama raised an unprecedented billion dollars in the last campaign, and much or even most of it was corrupt money. Laundered, false donor names, foreign money from our enemies. Absolutely nothing was done to investigate or prosecute any of this, and nothing will be done—because he’s a Democrat and because he’s running the justice system.
Ironically, McCain was crippled by the McCain-Feingold restrictions, but they didn’t bother Obama a bit. Neither would any other rules have any effect. As I said in my earlier posts, there used to be some balance between Republican and Democrat political machines, but no longer. Democrats have a huge advantage in corruption and cheating, and it’s only getting worse as time goes on. And the media just love it and are eager to help out.
1) term limits.. 2 and you are out..Citizen Representatives not professional politicians.
2) Congress may not pass a law and exempt themselves.
3) Serious jail time for any congressman/senator that is convicted of bribery, change the standard to reasonably prudent instead of beyond a reasonable doubt.
4)Unlimited donations inside the US only.. No money from foreign sources..With full disclosure and then the caveat..if you take more than 25K from any single source.. you must vote present on any issue that involves a contract, an investigation of a competitor or any other topic with material interest to a donor.
5)End all funding to all causes without a constitutional mandate.
I like your solution better. Poiticians are awash in money, their campaign activities effectively form giant slush funds. They need to produce their campaign propaganda, I suppose, so they should have the ability to hire along those lines. If they were given nothing other than a fixed number of TV commercial spots and a budget for the aforementioned publicity, then any money they *did* get would stand out more, and instead of sneaky criminals, the political class would theoretically consist more of folks who stood for their ideas, left or right, and were willing to represent same without some backdoor benefit (Barney Frank notwithstanding)
www.50calsilverbullet.com
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.