Many questions and issues have been raised about monetary contributions to political campaigns. As campaigns become more expensive, candidates need to raise more money. But, Fair Election laws limit individual contributions to a relatively low amount so a candidate has to try to gather lots of contributors. Or contributors give their excess moneys to PAC or 527 organizations that then contribute to the candidate or campaign independently for their pet issues.

Either way it ends up as a mess. The candidates can’t vet all their sources and they may not have an incentive to do so. PACs and 527s that promote special interests don’t have any real controls on their activities. But do we need controls?

In some sense I think we do, unbridled contributions by all and sundry lead to either the appearance of a conflict of interest or a real conflict of interest between office-holders and their constituencies. And the appearance, or conflict, does not become apparent until well after the election. But individuals should be allowed to contribute what they want to whomever they want. That’s just basic American values.

I suggest the there be unlimited contributions by registered voters to the candidates of their choice and that there be full disclosure of the contributors within a reasonable time-frame, say 3-5 days, in a public domain. (Given the ubiquity of the Internet, passing the information back to the appropriate election committee and getting them to post it in an organized manner should be straight-forward.) No obscuring or obfuscating the information. The contributors will be identified by their voter registration information so some sort of cross-checking is possible.

I don’t know if there should be a minimum amount that doesn’t need to be publicly posted. Some people might not want it known by the Democratic neighbors that they contributed $50 to a Republican candidate. That can be debated, but putting a non-publicized level in place starts the process of obfuscation. If a citizen can’t participate in the political process because of fear of retribution, then the terrorists have won.

This approach may not eliminate the PACs and other special interest campaign groups, but it may cut back on their input because their contributors may send the money directly to the candidates. Any group that is collecting for referendum campaigns should also be covered by these election contribution rules.

I’m not sure about political party contributions. Should parties be required to provide full disclosure as to who is giving them money? Since the parties can’t contribute to a candidate’s campaign, most of what they would do is run issue ads or party promotional ads. And again, most contributors will probably be going directly to the candidates.

Putting a limitation of only allowing registered voters to contribute will change the political fiscal scene. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Gary Farber, in Amygdala, points out Ron Suskind‘s article in the NY TImes Magazine. If this is the attitude you think is appropriate in a President, then by all means, vote for him.

As for me, I prefer someone who investigates all the angles and issues and who invites open discussion with advisors.

How would you and your party resolve the problem of the commons?

How do you and your party interpret “a more perfect Union”?

How do you and your party interpret “establish Justice”?

How do you and your party interpret “insure Domestic Tranquility”?

How do you and your party interpret “provide for the common defence”?

How do you and your party interpret “promote the general Welfare”?

How do you and your party interpret “the Blessings of Liberty”?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Can’t really think of any.

The election is coming up on us and I am reviewing the candidates: First, consider George Bush.

As the incumbent he has one strike against him. Never re-elect an incumbant to any office unless everything is the way you want it. If things aren’t the way you want it, then your incumbent is contributing to the problem.

Second, he doesn’t seem to realize what the oath of office he took in 2001 was about. “To defend the constitution of the United States”

Third, he invaded a sovereign nation without a declaration of war.

Fourth, he supposedly represents the US in front of the community of nations. I am not happy with the way he represents the US in this forum. He and his administration seem to have gone out of their way to insult long-time friends and allies.

Fifth, he seems determined to impose his religiouus beliefs on me and my fellow citizens. I look at his faith-based initiatives with more than a little trepidation. I see giving religious groups government money as requiring government oversight of religious activities and that is well down the slippery slope.

Sixth, he won’t admit that his adminstration made a mistake invading Iraq. He has said that he would do the same thing all over even if the intelligence indicated that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction. No WMD, no Declaration of War, no mistakes. Sorry, doesn’t work for me.

Seventh, he is a Republican president with a Republican-controlled Congresss and he doesn’t seem to have any control of his party. Why aren’t they agressively pursuing the Republican platform. Cut back all the government programs and bureaus, get rid of all regulations on Corporate America, take us back to those laissez-faire days of the 1800s.

GW continues to go adventuring with the military. I wonder where they will go next. I would like to see the Congress do its duty and declare war on somebody or some country.