WELCOME TO
FAIR CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

Here's a bold new approach that's based on a logical extension of our voting laws.

It levels the playing field for all candidates, and takes a lot of the money out of running for public office.

There's great concern these days about the enormous amounts of money involved in running for public office. To stay competitive, candidates are now forced to go far beyond their home constituencies to get funding for their campaigns.

Most everyone complains about it, but since candidates, lawmakers, and the powerful moneyed interests all benefit, change will not be easy. Nevertheless…

WE PROPOSE A NEW LAW:
You can only contribute to those for whom you can vote.

THIS MEANS
Candidates and office holders can only accept contributions from those who can vote for them, that is, from their constituents.

  1. THIS WOULD HAVE A HUGE IMPACT:

    1. No contributions from people living outside a candidate's district, county, state, or another country. This would apply to all candidates and elective office holders from local Selectperson to Governor to members of Congress to President.
    2. No contributions from corporations, organizations, unions, PAC's or special interest groups of any kind, because they don't vote. Only individual people vote.
    3. This would not in any way prevent anyone from talking all they like with candidates and lawmakers. It only applies to the exchange of political monies, i.e. donations, gifts, perks, etc. (For a discussion of free speech, see section V,1.)

  2. PUTTING THIS INTO PERSPECTIVE

    1. Voting, a powerful form of free speech, is regulated by law in the interests of equal representation. This means we can only vote for those who would represent us, that is, we're not allowed to vote for candidates in outside districts or states.
    2. We've all seen how the influx of uncontrolled outside donations into political campaigns can sway elections. Therefore it's reasonable and logical that political donations should conform to our voting laws, to promote the same equal representation.
    3. In fact, many people consider such outside donations to be equivalent to a vote, since the larger a candidate's war chest, the better his/her chances of winning. Just as voting for candidates outside one's district violates the principle of “one man, one vote”, so too, in a sense, does contributing to them.
    4. Looking at it another way, the more outside candidates you contribute to, the more candidates you're helping to win, and ultimately the more representation you may be gaining. This is more like, “one person, many votes”.
    5. It's now common practice for congressional candidates to openly solicit funds from people and groups all over the Country. For all intents and purposes, candidates for Congress have become national candidates. (See section V,6.)
    6. It appears that the principle of equal representation has been seriously undermined by political money. This trend must be reversed.

  3. MANAGING THE MONEY

    1. A CANDIDACY ACCOUNT (C-Account) will be required for each candidate and elective office holder, legally separate from the person, into which, and from which, all political donations and political expenditures flow. These C-Accounts will be funded solely from constituent donations. (as per section I,1.)
    2. Individual donations will have caps, set by the states, depending on the office sought. Included in these caps will be the value of any monies, gifts, perks and etc. given.
      1. These caps will be set for the duration of an entire election cycle, not just annually or for the length of an election campaign. This will ease the otherwise unfair fund-raising advantage enjoyed by incumbents.
      2. These caps will help to prevent abuses such as special interest groups funneling donations through individual constituents.
    3. All expenditures made on behalf of a candidate must be funded from his/her C-Account. (as per III,1 above).
      1. This will avoid the unfair spending advantage held by wealthy candidates. They can only contribute to their C-Accounts, subject to contribution rules and caps, just like all other contributors.
      2. This should prevent organizations, special interest groups, and anyone else from spending money independently on a candidate's behalf, or against his/her opponents.
      3. This doesn't in any way limit talking for or against candidates, it only restricts the spending of money to do so. (See V,1 for free speech.)
    4. There should be no need to put arbitrary limits on political expenditures, since spending will be automatically limited by the amount of money accumulated in a candidate's C-Account.

  4. ADVANTAGES OF THIS PROPOSAL

    1. It should substantially reduce the enormous amounts of money involved in running for public office.
      1. All candidates in any given race will have a reasonably level playing field. Candidates might have smaller war chests (their C-Accounts), but then so will their opponents, including incumbents and wealthy candidates.
      2. It will ease the “political arms race”, a term coined to describe the endless fund-raising demands put on candidates to stay competitive.
    2. It should significantly reduce the blatant influence and power that big business and special interest groups now have over candidates and lawmakers.
      1. Candidates and lawmakers should no longer be beholden to the powerful special interests, and they will be better able to work for the benefit of their constituents and the Nation, not just for the benefit of their large contributors.
    3. It will encourage more people -- as voters, candidates and lawmakers -- to participate in the political process as the distorting influence of big money disappears from the political stage.
    4. It will serve to promote grassroots democracy. With tight budgets likely limiting extravagant advertising campaigns that arguably mislead more often than they inform, candidates will need to find other ways to reach their voters, like good old-fashioned campaigning closer to home, within their own constituency.

  5. COMMENTS

    1. Obviously this proposal runs counter to the current interpretation of our First Amendment right to free speech, which considers money to be a form of free speech.
      1. The basic flaw in this current interpretation is that those with the most money and resources have the most free speech. This is a distortion of our First Amendment rights. It is a self-serving view supported by the wealthy and powerful. This issue deserves to be revisited in the courts.
      2. Money is not speech in and of itself. Either overt or implied speech always underlies any exchange of money. In the old cliche, “money talks”, the money clearly isn't talking – rather, the money's role is to reinforce the underlying speech and/or to unduly influence the recipient.
      3. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has written, “Money is property; it is not speech”.
    2. It needs to be said again that this proposal does not affect our actual First Amendment right to free speech. It only restricts the flow of political monies that so often masquerade as free speech.
    3. Senator John McCain has said, “Our system is broken.” There's a growing number of lawmakers and others who agree. The current interpretation of our First Amendment has only increased the level of corruption that we see in politics today.
    4. This proposal goes a step further and asserts that the only legitimate reason for any exchange of political monies, gifts, perks, and etc., is for constituents to support the election or re-election of candidates and office holders.
      1. Any other reasons are ultimately to gain or give special access and influence, and they should be recognized as bribes, plain and simple.
      2. This should apply not only to candidates and lawmakers, but also to non-elected public officials as well, i.e., those hired or appointed such as policemen, judges, committee chairpersons, and government workers everywhere. There is no legitimate reason for these people, or for those in a position to hire or appoint them, to be offered, or to accept funds or political favors of any kind.
    5. Since political parties are organizations, they too, should not contribute to candidates and lawmakers (see I,2), or spend money in any way on their behalf. (see III,3,b.) Without funds pouring in from the national parties for state and local candidates, there will be much more local control of the election process.
      1. Of course political parties can spend money to talk about issues, but without direct or indirect mention of specific candidates.
    6. It's been argued that donations to Congressional candidates from outside their constituencies are okay, since members of Congress work on legislation that affects the entire Country, not just their own states. Of course it's important for lawmakers to get input about issues from those to be affected, but there's no legitimate reason for money to be exchanged while doing so.

  6. IN CLOSING

    1. This proposal is an important addition to the campaign finance debate. There are constitutional issues that may need to be revisited in the courts, however it's encouraging that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has reiterated, during his recent confirmation hearing that, ”Precedent is not an inexorable command.”
    2. To sum up, it's all about restoring and protecting the principle of equal representation, which is the cornerstone of our democratic system. Therefore it's imperative that all moneyed interests everywhere must be kept in check so that the wishes of the electorate are not ignored.

“Every special interest is entitled to justice full, fair and complete...
but not one is entitled to a vote in Congress, to a voice on the bench
or to representation in any public office”.

- T. Roosevelt