Who does your representative work for?
The job of a special interest group is to win political favors. The favor may be the need for funding or it may be the creation of new laws requiring the service or the product of a particular industry. These Advocacy groups are not interested in what is good for the nation as a whole, or the Greater Good. The impact on the economy is real, the cost to the taxpayer is significant and the profit to their industry is tremendous.
- In 1997, Congress decided that reflectors on the front, sides and rear of tractor trailers were not “good enough.” It became law that all trailers (not just new) must have at least 50% of every side of every trailer covered with this new reflective DOT tap. The cost of the tape was $130.00 per roll and a trailer would require 1 ½ rolls. The reflectors were removed and the tape was applied. This is “special interest” (advocacy) in action.
- The laws requiring private medical practices to use a Health Information System (enacted in 2009) might indeed make the healthcare delivery system slightly more efficient. However, requiring medical practices to comply with these new laws creates such a financial strain on small private practices that they also make the creation of new private practices financially impossible. Hence, medical private practices are now on the endangered species list!
- In 2010, ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now is a collection of community-based organizations in the United States that is supposed to advocate for low and moderate-income families. This advocacy group has been funded with tax dollars of both Republicans and Democrats. In 2009, ACORN appeared to advise a young couple on how to hide prostitution activities and avoid taxes. In 2008 “ACORN noted it had 13,000 paid canvassers and that it was only a tiny handful who submitted phony forms,” (Voter registration forms).
Any special interest funded by our government needs to be prohibited from getting involved in all political campaign, in any way, this includes endorsements. This includes voter registrations. It is horrendous to have ACORN, (a special interest group funded with tax dollars of both Republicans and Democrats) raising funds, working for and endorsing any candidate or political philosophy.
In exchange for these endorsements from your congressmen, the Special Interest group rewards your congressmen by contributing to his reelection campaign. The more issues your representatives endorses, the more favors he is owed and the more campaign funding he collects! This is what Washington has become: The land of favors where one hand is always washing another.
So the question remains: Who does your candidate work for? His salary is paid for by the federal government, not your state. His ability to retain his job is dependant upon his ability to raise enough funds for his reelection campaign. These funds do not come from you. Even if you did contribute, how would your contribution stack up against that of the health care industry’s campaign contribution?
How can I get my candidate off of special interest’s payroll?
Campaign Finance Reform
On both your state and federal tax returns there is a box that allows you to donate $4 to campaign funds. Maybe this box should read $8, or $12. Most of us ignore this box. Whatever the amount, this contribution needs to be mandatory. Funds from Special Interest groups need to be eliminated completely. All campaign funds need to come from the tax payer.
To run for office, a person needs the endorsement of a political party. If the candidate chooses to run as an independent, then the candidate is required to collect a certain number of signatures, (this is the procedure in most states).
Each political party holds its own primaries where the members of that party select a candidate to represent them in the national election process.
In this proposed solution, each state should have a committee; independent and free from the influence of the governor’s office to insure a non partisan role in the election process. This committee could include two members appointed by both state political parties. The role of this committee would require these persons to focus solely on the efforts of the “independent candidates.”
If there is more than one independent candidate then the state needs to appoint a director or committee (as discussed above) to organize a primary for those candidates hopefully reducing the number of independent candidate to one per position?
Financing primaries must be the responsibility of the individual parties, (i.e., the RNC & DNC.
Funds for all primaries need to be of a general fund which would be used solely for the purpose of promoting the candidates for the primaries and any unused funds would be carried forth to future primaries and only future primaries. This fund would be furnished by the mandatory $4 contribution as set forth on the individual annual tax return as noted above.
Excess funds from the independent primaries will be held in escrow by the state and used for only future primaries of independent candidates.
Funds for candidates who won their primaries need to come from a specific state general account. The state should provide equal funding to all candidates. The state should provide a financial manager of the funds to insure proper use of the funds.
Each state would form a committee, independent and free from the influence of the governor’s office to insure a nonpartisan role in the election process. This committee would include members appointed by the state political parties. The role of this committee would require these persons to focus the efforts solely on the independent candidate.
It should be the state’s responsibility and objective to take a nonpartisan role in all elections and to insure equal funds, equal exposure, and equal press. It should be the objective of the state to assist the public in learning about their candidate and the platforms.
Funds for all national campaigns (with the exception of the presidential campaign) need to come from the respective state. Each candidate must receive the same campaign allowance. Campaign budgets need to be limited so that funds for negative campaigning / mud slinging are not available. The same rules would apply to presidential campaigns however the source of campaign funds would be the federal government.
All campaign expenses must be funded only by the states’ campaign funds. There can be no other source of campaign funds. There must be no assistance of any kind from any source. Any ad funded by any other group would be a violation of Law. Any media that participates in the violation of a campaign law must face powerful consequences. Any free media attention must be equal to all candidates regardless of the media’s preference.
Campaign Finance Reform | Political Campaign
Our election process has become a contest of financial ability and salesmanship. Neither of which are prerequisite of being a “good candidate” or an “honest candidate”.
Solutions are ideas that evolve. We are not an expert in every facet of government. Your ideas, comments, questions and experiences us develop these solutions. Please continue to submit your qualified insights.