|
Summary: Finance Reform 4
Campaign contributions, not legally expended on those enumerated
items, shall at the end of that election be promptly paid over to
whichever treasury which pays the salary of said elected official,
never saved in a campaign war-chest, or assigned to a political party
or another candidate.
Full Text: Finance Reform 4
Campaign Contributions not legally used in the Campaign shall
at the end of the election be promptly surrendered to the relevant
treasury in their entirety. The concept proposed is that contributions
should be spent in the campaign cycle in which the donation occurred.
And used only by the politico to which the money was given. Not later.
Not on some other agenda. Not on someone else’s campaign. And
certainly not for personal purposes after retirement.
Public policy would dictate that each election cycle politicos should be responsive
to the electorate. They should not be insulated from the electorate with a huge
chest of funds, in a sense insulating them from voters . They should not have
a huge financial advantage over meritorious challengers. And it is egregiously
offensive if to public policy if transgressions in office further reward and
insulate incumbents against the meritorious challenger.
Most feel that term limits are a good idea for politicians. What is the point
to term limits if they are allowed to amass, and retain large war chests when
in office? Why allow politicos to keep it, and after we forget about it, to use
it for personal purposes ? If these funds can be used for such personal purposes,
why call them Campaign Contributions Why allow them to set up bogus charitable
foundations to ”employ” friends, momentarily unemployed politicos,
and relatives for apparent “jobs”. Why allow them to give funds to
another politician ? If campaign funds aren’t legally used, that is used
for the enumerated expense categories, and then only in reasonable and necessary
amounts are at the end of the campaign why should they remain in the custody
and control of a politico? Should not unused campaign funds be returned to the
public treasury? Apportionment and refund to the donors might another feasible
possibility. But to pay directly to the public treasury might make politicos
less free with public funds. Would any other place be a better repository for
such unused funds? But in any case allowing them unfettered discretion to vast
sums of unused campaign contributions, or allowing them to retain such funds
at the end of their career raises the question, How is this not a bribe ?
In any case allowing them to remain in the control of the politico insulates
them from the need to seek contributions. Allowing the accrual of large campaign
war chests from prior years, tends to overwhelm would-be opponents. There is
a tendency to run un-opposed. Or against token opponents, running only half-hearted
campaigns. There is too much political inertia. Too often established politicos
never leave Washington, or rarely find their way back home. Things change, needs
of constituents change, economies of the home scene change. Why insulate politicos
from these changes of constituents? How is this a good thing?
Would it not be better policy to start each campaign cycle afresh, with a more
level playing field? Without large accrued war chests from other political victories.
Incumbents will still have contacts from government, and contacts from political
parties. They are still ahead of most challengers. Isn’t this a big enough
advantage for incumbents. If unused campaign contributions are not returned to
the public coffers, is the result simply be permissive payola? Freedom to convert
campaign contributions into personal uses is not freedom of speech. Nor is it
freedom of expression. It is freedom to distort the political process.
|
