NeoNote — Campaign finance reform redux
❝❝My idea for campaign finance reform.NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
You can't contribute to a campaign unless you reside in the area affected by the campaign. No one from Phoenix could contribute to a city council election in Tucson, no one from California could contribute to a proposition in Nevada, and so on.
No anonymous contributions. A current public list of all contributions must be maintained.
Any unused funds must be returned proportionally to all contributors or to a specified charity. If someone contributed .01% of the campaign's funding, then they would receive .01% of any monies left over.
Violating any of these rules would render a candidate legally unable to serve in any public office until the end of term for the office they ran for. If they ran for Senate, violation would make them ineligible for six years. In the case of a ballot proposition, the election would be voided and must be held again.
Money is not speech. No matter what the USSC says.
If they want to spend money, they can do so in their own home. If they want to speak against someone, they can do that where ever and when ever. But someone in Idaho doesn't have to live with the aftermath of an election in Illinois.
It's part of my SUPER SECRET PLAN TO DESTROY THE POLITICAL PARTIES.
Don't tell anyone.
People forget that the party system wasn't created by the Constitution. Yet they essentially control the nomination process. Take the cash flow and war chests and political action groups away and the parties collapse.
All without arguing over if cash is free speech.
Oh, and banning corporate campaign contributions. And union contributions. And political "matching funds."
*grins*
Money isn't speech any more than money is press. Money is a tool, a way of keeping score, and power, but it is not speech.
If money was really speech, there would be no legal limit to campaign donations.
If someone has more money, does that mean they have a bigger right of free speech or a bigger right of the press? If that is the case, we might as well do away with elections and just hold auctions.
It's telling that prior to campaign finance "reform," no one thought otherwise. It's also telling that the CFR was used to restrict speech.
Just because the law says something doesn't mean it's so. I'm still convinced that anyone born with a penis is a male.
Under my proposal, there are two restrictions on donating money. You have to be a voter and you have to reside in the area affected by the election. These are the two restrictions that every other proposed form of campaign finance reform tries to do away with.❞❞
blog comments powered by Disqus