Another unintended consequence?


The Abramhoff scandal and the Amerindian tribe payoffs have a very interesting origin. And it is not what (or who) you think.
When I first heard about the Abramhoff scandal, something nagged me. I couldn't figure out what it was. But Rush Limbaugh's staff found it. It's a Cato report from 2002.

Campaign regulations must be applied consistently across political parties and their respective committees. Hence, the DNC's request was rejected. The DNC isn't the only culprit when it comes to favoring one kind of campaign reform for itself and another for everyone else. Arizona Sen. John McCain (R) is a skilled practitioner of this approach to campaign regulation.

McCain, the principal backer of campaign finance reform, is also a loyal backer of Indian political causes. As a result, McCain is the number one recipient of the political donations provided to candidates by the nation's 550 Indian tribes. In fact, McCain receives twice the amount given to the second-highest recipient.

Under current law, a person may donate a maximum of $1,000 to a specific candidate up to an annual limit of $25,000. This is known as "hard money." The candidate may use it directly for his own campaign. In May 2000, the FEC ruled that an Indian tribe may make the current maximum hard money donation of $1,000 per candidate to each of the more than 500 candidates running for federal office, i.e., Indian tribes can make aggregate annual hard money contributions in excess of $500,000.

In April, McCain's campaign finance bill passed the Senate and remains in legislative limbo in the House. However, if a McCain-style campaign finance bill is eventually passed, thereby banning soft money, McCain's favored tribes will possess a huge advantage over other Americans in exercising their right to political speech. [emphasis added]

Just for the record, I actively opposed John McCain's 2004 reelection bid and McCain-Feingold was the major reason why.

Here's my suggestion for real campaign finance reform.

First, only registered voters should be able to contribute to any political campaign. No groups, no corporations, no lobbyists, no "bundles."

Second, campaign money should only be able to be spent in the election district where it was raised. Money raised at a Hollywood fundraiser shouldn't fund a New York race. Money raised in one Congressional district can't be spent on a Congressional campaign in another. Money raised in Boston can't be spent on a mayoral race in Cambridge.

Third, all unused campaign money should be returned proportionately to the donors within one week after the election.

Finally, if any candidate violates these rules, they should be barred from holding public office for the duration of the term of the office they were running for. So if a Senator violated these rules, he couldn't hold public office again until after their term would have been up.

Just a suggestion.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Thu - January 5, 2006 at 05:52 PM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved