#campaign finance
After Jeb Bush’s spectacular failure in running for president, some people say money’s role in politics has been exaggerated. That’s silly. Every Voice’s David Donnelly explains why in the New York Times:
“Having a lot of funding may not guarantee success, but having little is a great predictor of a loss. The cost of elections for virtually every office creates a barrier to entry for many would-be passionate public servants, leaving us candidate pools limited to those with wealth or access to it. Proportionately fewer women and people of color run for and serve in office as a result.
In turn, that narrows and distorts the policy debate because those who give large campaign donations aren’t reflective of America’s glorious diversity of views and backgrounds.”
Professor Richard W. Painter, the chief ethics lawyer under former President George W. Bush has an op-ed in the New York Times on the “conservative case for campaign finance reform.” He concludes:
“Taxation in the United States should be conditioned on every individual taxpayer’s being allowed to designate the first $200 of his or her taxes to support a political candidate. Such a “tax rebate for democracy” would bring billions of small donations to political candidates, who would no longer depend on a tiny sliver of the population for the money they need to get elected. Government contractors and other beneficiaries of wasteful spending would have less influence, and ordinary voters would have a fighting chance to make sure the rest of their tax dollars were spent conservatively and responsibly.
“This and other reforms, including greater transparency about who is paying for election ads, and a less activist Supreme Court that would allow Congress and state legislatures to address campaign finance, would go a long way toward restoring the republican form of government that our founders embedded in the Constitution.”
Post link
Sen. Bernie Sanders to the Des Moines Register: “Over the long term, I believe we need to move toward public funding of elections where anyone regardless of their income, regardless of their ideas can go forward and try to represent their constituencies
Post link
Hillary Clinton to the Des Moines Register: “ We also have to make sure all Americans have their voices heard. I’ve proposed a small-donor matching system for presidential and congressional elections, because you shouldn’t have to court huge donors to run for office, and you shouldn’t have to be a huge donor to make an impact.”
Post link
Charles and David Koch, the billionaire brothers who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars building a conservative network to oppose Democrats, have actually done very well for themselves since President Barack Obama took office.
The Koch brothers, who believe strongly in a market-based libertarian philosophy, each had a net worth of $19 billion in 2008, the year Obama was elected to office,according to Forbes. The fortune dipped slightly in 2009 to $16 billion amid a financial crisis that was caused, in part, by the kind of limited government oversight they believe in.
Surplus campaign funds should not be used for personal benefit or to bolster lobbying careers. The Let It Go Act would force political campaigns to let go of leftover campaign funds. #ForThePeople
According to OpenSecrets, 42 Members of Congress who resigned or retired before the 2018 midterm elections had a combined outstanding balance of $50 million in campaign funds. It’s not their money, they should Let It Go!
I introduced the Let It Go Act to ensure that the hard-earned dollars Americans donate to campaigns every cycle are not being abused by a candidate long after their campaign is over. This bill will help restore trust that these funds are being used responsibly and not for personal gain.
Corruption always bothered me anyway, read about my bill here: https://takano.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases/rep-takano-introduces-let-it-go-act-to-stop-personal-use-of-campaign-funds-after-the-campaign-ends
