In his new book Pendulum Swing
In the race to buy the most expensive candidates, why not make political campaign contributions part of the effort to pay off the national debt? Don't think of this as a tax but as a charitable contribution to the country.
Since congress and the Supreme Court are unable to police and control campaign spending, it simply makes sense that we should try and make something positive out of the massive amount of dollars thrown into American elections. Why should the media be the only sector benefiting directly from America's endless campaign cycles?
Here is my modest proposal, every dollar spent on campaign elections for congressional and presidential candidates,the government automatically takes 25 cents of that dollar to bring down the debt. The money would go into an account monitored by the Federal Election Commission, and transferred quarterly to pay down the debt.
It seems to me that any citizen, political party, or outside source who loves this nation, is passionate about electing a particular candidate, would be equally excited to know that even if their own candidate does not win, they have the pleasure of freely contributing to financially stabilizing America's fiscal state for future generations with their generous contributions to political campaigns.
Of course, the trick is how we put this modest proposal into action. Would members of congress be willing to pass such an altruistic measure?
Let the debate begin.
I like the idea. Unfortunately, the Citizens United case effectively killed campaign finance reform. Only when those running for office voluntarily limit contributions will we have campaign finance reform. And the only way I can see that happening is through an ancient process--shame. If everyday citizens can shame their legislators into campaign finance reform then we might stand a chance.
I'm not holding my breath, especially since the Citizens United case also allows foreign contributions to domestic campaigns.
It will never work. I mean, can you see the Kochs voluntarily accepting such a proposal? Can you see the Conservatives in Congress voting for such a proposal? Even more, can you imagine our own Governor Sam Greenback falling for it even under the guise of patriotism?
What? Are you serious?
First, nobody dem or rep would go for it.
Second, it wouldnt raise much money when you consider if they say $4 billion was spent however the federal debt, the one our grandcildren will continue to pay off, is over a $trillion so the $1 billion raised would barely scratch the national debt.
Third, you need to look at what campaign spending is spent on. Ads in the media, house signs, salaries, etc... so that money doesnt just go "poof", jobs are created. I used to work in college for a print shop which sold alot of campaign material so I know the money is locally in many small businesses.
Now I have no problem with full disclosure of where funds come from or maybe limits on spending but I dont see how the above proposal has any merit.
Colleen and Brad are right. It will never happen, and it really wouldn't help the debt substantially. What is most important to me about Vickie's idea is that it is an idea. To have real campaign finance reform is going to require out of the box thinking. We need all ideas. Even borderline crazy ones. Putting a tax on campaign contributions is an interesting idea. It's less radical than my own views about campaign finance reform. I think we shouldn't allow corporations, PACs, or other special interest groups to contribute to any campaign. My idea that I've written about is that to contribute to political campaigns you should be a voter. Corporations can't vote. They shouldn't be part of the process. The Supreme Court would obviously disagree with me, but pushing radical ideas is how we are going to put the power back in the hands of the people.
Independent, the problem with full disclosure is that often an entity (person, company, union, organization, etc...) often wish to contribute to a cause or candidate and to keep quiet about it. I guess this can be either good or bad. Good in that everyone knows where the money comes from plus the person might want to have their choices made clear, OTOH supporting controversial persons or issues can get many innocent people into trouble or keep people from exercising their rights to free speech. Look for example, at the case of Dominoes Pizza when the company had a boycott put on them because a former owner gave money to a pro life cause. And look how the gay marriage amendment went out in California where persons who gave money to that issue were fired from their jobs and even had threats made on their families. Also in the case of that issue it became a kind of shakedown where certain people were accosted for either not giving money or not giving enough money.
Maybe a better compromise lies in the candidates themselves where they disclose on their websites information on their donors. Looking at such information gives a pretty good idea of who, what, and where the candidate really stands.