My son started school this week. I sat down and went through all of his paperwork, compiling a list of what he would need for each class, I began to think about the upcoming notices I would be receiving. The forms asking for aid with canned drives and potlucks for most departments to raise money for much needed support for programs across the spectrum in his school.
I began to think about this article I’d been intending to write and found myself becoming more and more frustrated. As my mind ran through all of the events I would attend in an effort to help students and teachers my frustration grew into outrage. I was appalled that parents and teachers all over the United States struggle this time of year as school begins, yet there is a plethora of available funds for a presidential candidate. Tax dollars and contributors are funding Presidential campaigns and these funds have no guarantee beyond a crooked smile. We fund their search for a position as the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet and they are not even required to tell the truth when campaigning. In my opinion, the finance of political campaigns shouldn’t exist and the public finance of any campaign at all is ridiculous. However, it is a necessary evil in our society. Money can corrupt and when mixed with the strive for power it inevitably does so.
Two opposing ideas are generally presented when discussing political finance. The first idea being an open market where as many people and organizations are legally permitted to finance a presidential campaign as is desired. The second of the ideas being a system where political finance is provided by tax paying citizens. Both trains of thought are based on the belief that funds are necessary to run a political campaign. However, why should the funds be permitted without oversight? Both funding from taxpayers and private or individual funding are based entirely upon the funds deemed necessary and acceptable to run a political campaign according to our current system. However, when any American citizen looks for a job they do not readily have the same opportunities to attempt to gain the employment of their choice. After all, we are talking about the attempt to obtain the position of the President, the personal fiscal responsibility in attaining the position should certainly come into play. If they want the position, they should work for it in an honest and fiscally responsible manner.
Former President and founding father Thomas Jefferson wrote, “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” When a person checks yes on their box when filing taxes, they are not freely choosing which candidate will receive their funds. Only that the funds will be available to a presidential hopeful if one chooses to utilize the funds. That box each citizen sees on November 8th is a yes or no on funding Presidential election campaigns not a yes to fund their choice of candidate. In addition, the fund utilizes tax dollars to keep the people who are in power on top. The Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) regulation approval is based, in part, on the ability of a potential candidate gaining the necessary $5000.00 ($250.00 per individual contribution) from twenty different states. A major political party has a considerably better chance of ensuring that this happens than a person running under a less known political party. In addition, the necessity behind the creation of the FEC offers an example of the inevitable corruption that occurs when campaigns are financed by outside sources.
In 1864 President Abraham Lincoln writes his fears down in a letter to Colonel William Elkins stating that “… corporations have become enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow. The money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its rule by preying upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is concentrated in few hands and the Republic is destroyed.” His perception was from a nation torn due to the Civil War, but he saw then that the power of corporations had indeed grown. Just three years later in 1867 the first attempt at reforming campaign finance was made. The Naval Appropriations Bill was created to stop dock workers from being harassed for political donations and expanded then in 1883 to protect all government workers. In 1896, advertising for political campaigns began. An Ohio businessman named Marcus Alonzo Hanna, who would later become chairman of the Republican National Committee, organized political campaigning by asking companies for political contributions and setting up speakers, posters, buttons and more. In 1905 President Theodore Roosevelt called for reform believing that all contributions from companies should be banned entirely, proposing a system in which the public would finance candidates. The Federal Corrupt Practices Act was passed in 1910, limiting spending by the house and senate and requiring disclosure from federal candidates concerning contributions.
By 1925 an amendment was added to the Federal Corrupt Practices Act intending to cap spending and fortify the aforementioned amendment., However, President LBJ referred to it as “more loophole than law.” Between 1910 and 1947 a myriad of attempts were made to plug additional loopholes in campaign finance laws. Each time funding still found its way into the hands of those running for office. In 1971 the Federal Elections Campaign Act (FECA) was passed intending to limit spending and require full disclosure of campaign funds. However, it only limited certain contributions and allowed for corporations and unions to form Political Action Committees (PAC). Merriam Webster’s dictionary defines a PAC as follows: “a group that is formed to give money to the political campaigns of people who are likely to make decisions that would benefit the group’s interests.” The Revenue Act was also passed in 1971, encouraging citizens with a 50$ tax deduction (ended 1978) if they contributed to a political campaign and a request to consider checking a box on the bottom of their tax form to finance presidential candidates.
Former founding father, and President, Thomas Jefferson said it best when he wrote “The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” Funding coming from taxpayers or undisclosed private interest is a racket. Although the fund currently in place where taxpayers can choose to donate three dollars has oversight by the Federal Election Commission, the fact that it is necessary cannot be ignored. Again and again American history shows us that corruption correlates directly with finances behind political campaigns. When money exchanges hands in an effort to gain a higher foothold in a political race, corruption will inevitably occur. The 1972 election of President Nixon was brought about in part by political donations that were not disclosed, including $780,000 in illegal corporate contributions, revealing corruption with political finance yet gain. A combination of that election and concerns over the rising costs of funding political campaigns led Congress to create the Federal Election Commission to enforce the FECA as well as adding limits on contributions ($1,000 individual contribution limit and a $5,000 PAC limit). Financing political campaigns is ridiculous and doing so without all information being readily accessible to the public is completely unacceptable. History has shown this to be true repeatedly, yet we continue to make the same mistakes.
On January 21, 2010 the Supreme court ruled (5-4) that restrictions of independent political expenditures by nonprofit organizations was prohibited by the constitution under freedom of speech. Within two months of that ruling an appeals court removed limits on contributions to independent-expenditure shops. An independent-expenditure are most easily defined as ads for or against a specific candidate and this ruling permitted independent political action committee (super-PAC’s) the freedom to raise as much money as they wanted from corporations, unions, and individuals. These rulings altered the fiscal political regulations on a massive scale. Let me be clear, these organizations primary goal is to influence a federal election. The aim is to raise funds to alter the political perspective of the citizens who see the advertisements and absolutely no requirement is made for the truth to be told. We are allowing groups to do whatever is necessary to get their candidate into office but do not require anyone to see where the money comes from. No oversight and no truth exists. We, the American people, are allowing companies to pay politicians to lie to us.
Personally, I find this fact terrifying and utterly unacceptable. In my opinion, no person or organization should be permitted to help pay for the campaign except the candidate who seeks the job. That being said, or rather written, I do realize that in today’s media based climate getting the word out there will realistically take more funds than say, for an example, in 1757 when George Washington bought a round of drinks for 391 voters. I also realize that the current system in place in the United States may not allow for a massive reformation such as the removal of all political campaign funding. Instead, let’s just require the truth and a realistic amount to run for the position of President. That shouldn’t be to hard, should it? Tell the American voters the truth and don’t exceed a realistic amount of money when doing so. We need to insist that all information on who is funding each and every cent to candidates be available to voters. We do not have the necessary information available to us when we are making the choice on who to vote for unless we know everything. Therefore, the knowledge on where a political candidate’s contributions come from is an important part of the process. Voter perception will change rapidly if the person claims one belief but accepts funding from an entity whose beliefs differ greatly. This small change will allow truths to be unveiled, and we deserve to know the truth when deciding who we are going to vote for. This is possible if we are re-allocating funds already in existence. Rather than offering candidates funds to run when we check that box on our IRS forms approving the three-dollar campaign contribution, let’s make it a three-dollar contribution to ensure that they are honest and frugal.
Presidential hopefuls are vying for our vote, so it is the citizens of the United States who should be deciding what amount of money expended is acceptable in an effort to gain that vote. Let me clarify, the plan I am about to write about is my opinion. The first thing that is needed is a cap on spending for running a campaign. According to NY Daily News a seat in the House of Representatives costs 10.5 million dollars. Based on that, a fair amount to finance a campaign should be about 500 million dollars per candidate. The next step is specifying how candidates can legally receive the funds. Plainly put, PAC’s and superPACs have to be outlawed. I find it disconcerting that the First Amendment is being utilized in an effort to ease corporate funding of political campaigns. Freedom of Speech as a reason to allow many to group together to fund a candidate seems like an awfully big stretch beyond its original intent. Each person in those PAC’s and super PAC’s are absolutely free to show their support to the candidate of their choice with a check of $2000.00. Leading to my next belief that every contribution to a presidential campaign should not exceed that amount, $2000.00 total. In 2014 there were a recorded 318.9 million people living in the United States, plenty of registered voters for a presidential hopeful to reach out to. The most important aspect of this plan is oversight. Many have checked that box on the bottom of the tax form so let’s use the funds sitting there to create an oversight committee. The committee would need to require a budget which included specifics on exactly where each and every dollar funding each campaign came from as well as where it is spent. No money furnished to a political hopeful until a budget is submitted and approved and it would be vital that everyone on the committee have absolutely no political affiliation. The selection of the committee should occur by popular vote, our vote. Many details would need to be worked out for a plan such as this to come into fruition but my point is clear, changes to the current system are urgent and necessary.
It is an unfortunate reality that whenever money comes into the mix, greed gets the best of many. Since money is already tangled in with politics and greed is woven into the fabric of both, let’s use taxpayer money for a little good. It is our choice to donate the three dollars so if we are going to choose to do so, why not make them show us the truth before we decide who to vote for. Let’s go even further and require the truth from our potential presidents as well as in advertisements. Jeff I. Richards said it best when he wrote “The law requires a paper towel ad to be scrupulously honest, but allows political candidates to lie without reproach.” Each time a law has been passed limiting funding, a loophole has been found and taken advantage of. In today’s fiscal political world, no oversight exists and it is time that some does. The American people need to stand up and insist in a collective voice that we require and insist upon the truth from our presidential hopefuls. If you want the position of our leader, you MUST be held accountable to the nation’s citizens, and the smallest accountability that we all deserve is truth and frugality. If you want the job then tell us the truth and spend responsibly or simply put, you deserve to be nowhere near the White House much less the leader of our great country.
