Comments

2 Comments so far

1. Adam Dynes on March 12, 2009 8:46 am

   Increased transparency is the key. Require candidates and PAC’s to post donations online within 24 hours of being deposited in a campaign account. Create a statewide financial disclosure database that citizens can easily search to find specific data on candidates/donors as well as aggregate data.

   Limiting campaign contributions is a false solution to a perceived problem. It’s like putting up a chain link fence to keep fog off your property. A cursory glance at recent presidential elections shows that contribution limits are ineffective at limiting the amount of money spent on campaigns. Ultimately, contribution limits simply benefit candidates who are individually wealthy since the US Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to limit how much someone can donate to their own campaign.

   The real question is whether or not it is bad that so much money is spent on campaigns. To provide perspective, consider the fact that the U.S. spends more on Halloween candy than candidates do on federal campaigns. And which enterprise is more important? In some ways, we may not be spending enough on campaigns, especially at the state and local levels.

   I think the Deseret News estimated that state candidates spent a total of $10 per voter in 2008. Given how many candidates and issues were on the ballot, that’s not much money to inform voters about what they’re voting for. The candidate who was elected to represent me on the Utah State Board of Education reported spending only $15 on her campaign before the election. I had no idea whom she was nor what her stance was on education issues and I still have no idea how anyone even knew why to vote for her. Candidates’ not spending enough on campaigns is a bigger detriment to democracy than candidates’ spending “too much.”

   We should also consider why it is that more money is being spent on campaigns. First, as our population increases, each elected official is representing more people, meaning he or she must spend more money to get his or her message out to constituents. Second, and probably more important, government’s role in society and the economy continues to expand. When government begins to choose winners and losers, especially in economic situations, it dramatically increases the incentive for special interests to get involved in the election process. If we were truly serious about getting rid of the “corrupting influence” of donations from “special interests,” then we should limit government to its original purpose of protecting inalienable rights and enforcing the rule of law and contracts.

   In any case, transparency is key. It empowers citizens to decide whether or not a candidates’ donors are problematic or not. It also informs citizens about candidates’ political positions (perhaps better than campaign materials do). If groups that I support donate to a candidate, I can be more confident of that candidate’s support for issues that I also support. Limiting campaign contributions hides the valuable information about choosing a candidate that campaign transparency makes apparent.

2. Lola Barrett on March 30, 2009 11:40 am

   I have some pretty strong feeling about campaign finance as it stands now. I’m unhappy with current laws because I feel they disenfranchise the people (remember - of the people, by the people, for the people?). Those in powerful positions in business, labor, foundations, large PACS etc. give a lot of money for the influence and time it will buy for their causes in Utah and nationwide. The average person/citizen cannot afford to compete. Our system has tipped and is upside down, our elected officials rarely listen to the people, they spend too much time trolling for donations for their next run for office or they are independently wealthy enough to finance a large portion of their campaign.

   So, the average person attends their caucus, is elected to a precinct position or becomes a delegate. They do a lot of the leg work, like volunteering at the conventions, posting signs etc. and in return hope to have some influence. Doesn’t happen! It’s all about the money! You want to know why people don’t vote? Duh! They don’t count!

   My opinions regarding changing campaign finance include the following.

   Limit the amount of money business, foundations, and other special interests can give (Return power to the people). This may decrease the amount spent on elections and help the candidates to focus their funds on positive campaigns. As a voter I want to know what issues they will support and which they won’t! I want to know how they would vote differently than their opponent.

   All campaign contributions for state offices must come from within the state, not out of Utah or out of the USA. If an organization/business is not operating in Utah it cannot donate. No donations from Pacs operating outside Utah for state offices.

   Allocation of funds to a candidate from the national party offices would be acceptable for a national race, but be limited to party headquarters operational expenses for state races and not to be used for campaigning (My view is that the parties no longer represent the average person - return power to the people).

   National offices: all campaign contributions must come from citizens of the USA, no contributions from outside the USA, no contributions via the internet without citizenship verification.

   A minimum of 50% of campaign funds must come from the HOME state of the candidate (again return power back to the people and make the elected official more accountable to them).

   Transparency critical. Doners and candidates must promptly file reports (within 7 days of giving or the candidate receiving). Exception: no donations may be accepted the final seven days prior to an election. All donation reports must be finalized five days prior to the election. The state should have a web site listing all candidates and all donations and it must be kept current (within 3 days of receiving reports). They should also be available in paper form. Failure to comply will make candidates INELIGIBLE for re-election.

   All PACs or groups funding commercials/ads must identify themselves and which candidate they are supporting. Attack ads should be cleared by the candidate so they can take responsibility instead of hiding and saying it wasn’t their campaign that ran the ad. These kinds of denials for lousy ads just show they are lacking in ethics. If you want to say something bad about your opponent take the heat!

   Filing fees are too high, all people should be able to afford to file.

   Parties do not treat candidates equally. They withold delegate lists, and financial support in favor of certain candidates as a regular practice. Those in power run over delegates. Delegates who have worked hard to bring issues to convention for a voice and a vote are routinely trashed and by Roberts Rules the convention is ended early so those waiting to be heard are disenfranchised. Same people consistently elected as national delegates, no room for new people (unless you have lots of money). You can’t clean up campaign finance until you clean up the leadership of the parties, until people working in the parties are treated respectfully and equally. As has been said. Get rid of the dirty tricks and game play and get serious about freedom.