One of the most continuous problems in American politics has been the use of money to effect the outcomes of election. Big money from lots of places other than the districts and states from which these "representatives" are elected. The Supreme Court has held that money and the spending of it is a First Amendment issue That may mean that any attempt to rescue our representative democracy from the plutocrats and lobbyists may require a Constitutional Amendment. But, maybe not. Constitutional Amendments are always problematical, and the people often do not get what they thought they were getting.
However, at the risk of being seen as a pollyanna, or some kind of crazy radical, I put forth the following: below the fold--
Federal election law should provide that any candidate for elective office may not receive any money or in kind support, other than a written or verbal endorsement, except from those who are qualified to be electors in the election contest that the candidate is running in. By qualified to be an elector I mean that whether registered to vote or not, and whether of age or not, they are bona fide residents and domiciliaries of the district or state that the candidate wishes to represent. Of course, this excludes corporations, LLC’’s, LTD’s, LP’s PA’s and a whole host of other business entities, many newly created by statutory excess, that are not human beings, and not resident of the district or state sending the person to Congress.
It also excludes persons from other states, districts ot commonwealths whose interest in any race beyond those of their residence, is purely secondary to any interest of those living in the district. Indeed, people in California may have interests completely inimical to residents of (say) South Dakota. If California moneymen can affect the election of Congresspeople or Senators from South Dakota, then, how do the people of South Dakota have any confidence that they have any representation at all?
The next question that arises is how to enforce such a provision. It may be fairly simple. A provision that provides that any candidate for any elective federal office to who receives, directly or indirectly any money, in kind contribution or support of any value other than a written or verbal endorsement of the candidate shall upon proof of such receipt by a preponderance of the evidence presented before a U.S. District Judge shall forfeit the office to which the candidate has received the winning vote total, and shall be prohibited from running for federal elective office for a period of seven years.
Now many may say that this is a draconian provision, however, let us look at the benefits. First, the elections become local and far less expensive. The consequence of that is likely to be that lobbyists and bag men will have far less purchase on the attention of the Congress people. The lack of million dollar Congressional seats will be almost like a large tax cut for the Rich and famous. Candidates will have to campaign in their districts, and speak to the voters therein, and not pontificate from Baghdad, or Washington, DC on what great plans they have for the voters’ money and liberties. Another benefit might be that the almost completely unmanageable Federal Election Commission might have far smaller and more manageable portfolio. Another truly praiseworthy result would be the elimination of PAC’s of all kinds. One could continue with the litany of benefits from such a law, but, let’s examine some of the shortcomings.
First. the political chattering class would have a series of strokes over the idea that representation in Congress is somehow the business of those represented. And then, there will be the assertion that the provision for a bench trial is somehow a violation of the sacred right to a jury trial. However, if a six person jury trial is necessary, then so be it. Of course the next criticism will be that this provision would "open the floodgates of litigation". This old canard has accompanied every increase in the access to justice by ordinary citizens since before the liability for manufacturing defects was found to be part of the Common Law. In fact, the ease of challenging a candidate’s source of campaign funds, together with the specific, non suspendable and certain penalty will have great effect at keeping candidates from cheating on this. Some may complain that such a provision will lead to a low economic bar to running for federal office, and fill the field with those of us less experienced in the art and science of legislation. My response is that the great wash of money coupled with the professional politicians has led to the greatest lack of foresight of any legislative body since the Roman Senate granted Julius Caesar the title Dictator. It is the very high cost of running for office that gives the corporations, defense contractors and lobbyists the hold over our representatives.
We read daily of how our Congresspeople and Senators listen to the lobbyists from Insurance, health care, pharma, banks and wall street instead of the voters in their districts. With the proposal above set out, the present crop of elected representatives will have to listen to the voter, or they will face a real, as opposed to theoretical chance of being retired by the voters. Whether this will require a Constitutional Amendment is unknown at present, as this particular question has not been presented to the Supreme Court. But it may require such if only for the fact that our present Congress is so unlikely to pass such a law, that we, the people may have to go the hard way. What say you?