Thoughts on Campaign Finance Reform
Thursday, October 27th, 2016 @ 6:37PM
You should be aware that any politician on the national stage from either major party who says that we need campaign finance reform, a reversal of Citizens United, or less “dark money” in politics is quite simply telling you what you want to hear and has no, and I mean zero, plans to actually do anything about it.
Both major parties live on Super PAC money and will not do anything to screw up the seemingly endless supply of cash and negative ads.
If I could call the shots:
1) Only living, breathing human beings would be allowed to make campaign contributions.
2) All bundling of contributions would be eliminated. No so-called bundlers, no PACs, no unions… None of that.
3) Personal contribution limits would be established that are reasonable. For purposes of my argument, we’ll stick with what we’ve got now: $1,000 per person per calendar year in MA races and $2,700 per person for Federal primary races and $2,700 per person for Federal general election races. This limit would apply to the candidates as well.
4) Only candidate and ballot question committees could receive campaign contributions.
5) Committees could not borrow money or negotiate payment terms from vendors other than cash on the barrelhead.
6) Only people eligible to vote for a candidate or a ballot question (whether the person is registered to vote or not) could make political contributions. Think about that one. I saw a headline this morning that more than 80% of money supporting candidates in hotly contested U.S. Senate races is coming in from out-of-state. This would end that.
All of this would dramatically reduce the amount of money in elections, necessarily shortening the length of campaigns and requiring candidates to rely more on in-person appearances and a good volunteer-based ground game rather than hundreds of millions of dollars spent on TV ads.
That is all.
Back to the way it is