|
Summary: Finance Reform 3
Campaign funds may only be used for enumerated campaign related purposes.
Full Text: Finance Reform 3
Campaign contributions may only be used for valid, and enumerated
campaign expenditures: office rental, phone service, secretarial,
postage, ad- vertising and P.R. travel expense, and consulting fees.
But in no case shall not be used for personal purposes (imputed income).
For example , should Milwaukee’s ex- Mayor Norquist’s
use of campaign funds to settle his paternity suit qualify for a
campaign expenditure? Aren’t the paternity settlement funds
so personal in nature, that they should not be the object of legal
campaign contribution expenditure? Or does the fact she was a campaign
manager supply sufficient nexus to make this a valid campaign expenditure?
Or should Messrs Ryan, Flynn, Chuck Chvala be permitted to spend
hundreds of thousands of dollars of campaign contributions in defense
of their felonious acts. Personal expenditure, or valid campaign
expenditure? Funds for criminal defense of politicos are presently
valid campaign finance expenditures. Should this be the legal?
It is one thing to grant politicos immunity for certain actions while in office,
but should criminal acts be subsidized by campaign contributions? Is this sound
public policy?
Why reimburse politicos their personal attorney fees for their criminal, even
felonious actions committed while in public office? And why further reward them
by giving them generous pensions for misconduct while in office? Is this what
we expect from our lawgivers?
With contributor returns, online posting of contributions, (proposal # 2 ) accurate
campaign contribution revenues can be generated. Political indebtednesses can
be better surmised, and the public can better understand the policies the elected
officials are inclined to represent, election blather notwithstanding. And the
timing of any campaign contribution becomes instantly clear. Coupled with defined
and regulated expenditures, the public can gain more insight as to funds accrued,
there is less room for politicos to harvest and use for personal purposes any
ill gotten qpq-cc gain.
Perhaps the issue is not regulations that are the narrowest possible abridgement
of a basic right. The question becomes how much knowledge is the public entitled
to. Who will argue too much transparencies is a bad thing?
If we allow campaign contributions to be used for general purposes or personal
purposes, how is it different from ordinary income? How is it not a bribe ? Why
do we allow them to be called Campaign contributions? Unregulated campaign fund
expenditures: is this freedom of speech, or reasonable regulation of campaign
fund expenditure?
|
