Campaign Financing Laws Create Political Evil – Easy Solution Exists

Posted on | February 1, 2010 | No Comments

by Xelan Bonn (Feb 1, 2010) www.xelanbonn.com

Most Americans have never read the U.S. Constitution. The reasons are many but largely because they have, up until recently, always trusted their leaders were reading it, and moreover, following it. It has been such blind trust by the public, in part, that has lead our nation to the brink of collapse—the death of capitalism—the death of our dollar—the death of freedom—the death of our Constitution and Republic. And it all has one thing in common—campaign financing corruption.

Today, our government looks very little like the government planed for and intended by the Founding Fathers. In fact, it’s not only an absurdity, but an embarrassment to, and affront on, all U.S. citizens and Constitutionalist who have taken the time to research the roots of their nation and underlying fears the founders had regarding tyranny that lead to the single greatest Constitution in world history (proven by America being the last remaining, albeit dying, Superpower). There are many reasons as to why, over the decades, our leaders have forsaken and chipped away at our Constitution, but chief among them has been the corrupted system of campaign financing, which has negatively impacted otherwise good people and leaders.

Then and now, our leaders make decisions not based on the needs of the Constitution or voters, but on the needs of campaign funders–often in backroom deals unseen and unknown by the public until a new, bad bill is slapped on American backs that supports such special interests.

InternetCampaign Financing Issues
In America, it has always taken money to win elections. Just the basic expenses are out of reach for most citizens, so if someone intends to run for public office, then they must solicit aid and funds from others. And therein lies the fatal flaw in our campaign funding system. Overcoming such a flaw requires wisdom and common sense, both of which are often absent in today’s political arenas.

Those who contribute more to elections (and re-elections) of course, garner more political favors once the candidate is in office. Sometimes, those contributing do not only contribute funding or access to it, but also votes, clout, and power, which tends to indenture the candidate throughout their rein. Today, such influencers do not have to be U.S. citizens or U.S. based companies in order to help candidates (even though many of our laws prohibit such).

The reality is, for every campaign financing law, there are two or more loopholes that allow virtually anyone or country or entity anywhere in the world to participate in and influence our national elections, especially given rules and regulations regarding Internet fund raising. For example, in the last Presidential election, candidate Barack Obama was alleged to have garnered what some researchers estimated was over $200 million in Internet donations, much of which was thought to come from persons and entities outside the United States, including countries such as Saudia Arabia, Iran, and China. Although one alerting e-mail message in particular that was sent to tens of thousands of Americans was considered anonymously authored and partially inaccurate, the bigger issues and questions it raised have yet to be fully investigated and remedied by Congress. (1)

For example, small campaign donations made online use the honor system, whereby the person submitting the campaign donation merely pledges they are staying within the laws of campaign financing—there is no verification or policing action or way to ensure enforcement of such provisions, which opens the entire system up to a major national security threat from election fraud and undue foreign influence in elections.

Superme Court Aids Corporate Influencers
Compounding the problems of foreign influence in our campaigns and political landscapes, a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling (Jan 2010) gave the green light for corporations to spend as much as they wish on indirect political issues that do not specially mention a candidate by name. Corporations are not prohibited from inferences or obvious logical conclusions in such political messages that might tend to impeach a candidate.

Meanwhile, other current laws that still forbid foreign influence in our political processes still have more holes than a 50-year-old sieve.

While foreign corporations may be excluded from directly influencing elections, they can use a variety of loopholes to overcome such laws. One such loophole is to set-up a U.S. based nonprofit (i.e. Move On, La Raza, etc.) and then fund it with offshore funds (and eventually US sources as well). Acting as essentially a “front”, the nonprofit then proceeds to press its political viewpoints on the public as if it is a domestic-centered entity.

Another commonly used loophole (especially now, given the Supreme Court ruling) is for foreign countries or companies (transnational corporations are well known for this) to establish a US based corporation and then feed it capital through a series of dummy offshore accounts or from its mother corporation or sister subsidiaries and then use that capital in the US to purchase political or institutional ads and airtime—all through the “front” US-based corporation.

The federal government is realistically unable to police these loopholes effectively and the benefit of the doubt is routinely given to all US based corporations or nonprofits. However, the reality is that these loopholes allow anyone, from any country, or of any political leanings (i.e. Marxist, Socialist, Progressives, etc.) or of any foreign government in disguise, to easily affect schemes that greatly influence our national elections–contrary to our laws and intents for such laws. What’s needed is a major overhaul of not only our campaign and political message funding laws, but of campaign financing systems in America.

Campaign Financing Reform Is Nearly Impossible
The dark reality is, the chances of US citizens getting such changes are almost zero. Here’s why…

Corporations, for the most part, are the top money players with the big pockets that fund our elections and back most of our candidates. In turn, the candidates are controlled, to a large extent, by those that funded them and get them elected. Corporations like having their power to control elections—the companies with the most money, of course, get to rule America and they are not going to allow their candidates to ever affect campaign financing reform or laws that have any real teeth.

It is highly unlikely America will ever be able to restrict corporations (both foreign and domestic) from our political processes. Hence, our system is permanently corrupted, for our leaders, and not the people, are in charge of the laws and they make the laws to suit their corporate controllers—period.

Campaign Reform Remedy Proposal
In the US, the major expense for all candidates is their need to run their ads on the air (radio and TV). Over 85% of all funds raised go for this aspect. However, this cost could be easily eliminated without costing US taxpayers a dime (more on this in a moment). If such an expense were eliminated, then a much smaller amount of public donated money would be needed, hence greater restrictions could be set in place under campaign financing reform (if our leaders decided to help America survive and thrive once again).

For example, corporations, which the US Supreme Court has given status equal to (some would say above) those of any US citizen, could also be limited in the precise same way as US citizens in their campaign financing rules. If, for example, a US citizen can donate up to $3,000 in a year for a campaign, then so should and could the limit be made on corporations. Thus, the playing field is leveled and US citizens and their voice remains heard in the body politic.

Other rules could then be put in place to deny domestic corporations with strong tries to foreign or transnational corporations or who are transnational corporations, from participating in any political messaging whatsoever. They could be so designated by the federal government as foreign-based corporations even if they have domestic status. The same goes for international nonprofits with domestic arms (i.e. Move On, La Raza, etc.). Prohibiting Internet donations that do not include payment by check and proper I.D. (i.e. Driver’s License) should help eliminate most online abuses.

Such reform aspects will easily resolve the vast majority of our campaign loopholes so long as we can eliminate candidates (or the public) having to foot the bill for airtime—and we can. Here’s how…

The great news is, the public owns the rights to all airwaves in the United States. All broadcasting licenses are owned by “We The People’s” federal government and are leased to private companies that must meet certain rules and conditions in order to keep the license. All we have to do is rewrite the rules and conditions on such licenses to ensure all authorized candidates in election years are given, free of charge from the private company holding the licenses, equal allotments of airtime as may be specified by campaign financing reform laws. If any broadcaster does not like the change in the rules, they are free to turn their licenses back into the federal government so that others can take up such licenses (relax–nobody is going to turn in their license–believe me–no matter how much they cry).

Yes, broadcasters will lose yearly campaign revenues, however, the alternative is they could lose their entire broadcast licenses altogether instead of merely less than 1/2% of their total year’s airtime—which in turn, is put to use for the greater public good. Candidates get free airtime, the public provides the service free, broadcasters provide the systems for free in order to maintain their licenses, and taxes do not have to rise.

The remaining 15% of unfunded campaign financing will come from US citizens and corporations (up to $3,000 per candidate) and from matching federal funds provided under current campaign financing laws. Best of all, candidates would then be elected based on their merits, not based on their corporate sponsorship and they would no longer be beholding to anyone after taking office, except their convictions and voters–what a concept–government in the hands of the people once again. (Wow, didn’t I read something about such a “by the people, for the people” concept somewhere… maybe… oh yeah, in that old discarded thing they call the U.S. Constitituton!)

And yes, in case you’re wondering, the very same system could be put in place for each state. In fact, states could begin this process without the federal government, but that is another story altogether.

(1) Snoopes: Campaign Contributions
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/donations.asp

Subscribe To Site:

Full Post Feed | Summary Feed | Comments Feed

Comments