Who Do Politicians REALLY Represent?
We are all very aware of the tremendous amount of money now involved in almost every election. Some see the increasing totals as the problem. It is not the amount of money that is the problem…the problem is from where it comes and why it is available! In a country built on the principle of “one man – one vote,” it is amazing that we have not focused on one very important definition. If you look up the word representative you will find the following meaning:
Definition of a representative: Individuals authorized to act on behalf of another such as an agent, counsel, member of a legislative body, proxy, or trustee.
If one steps back a few thousand miles from Washington, DC and focuses on the way the constitution was drafted to provide balanced representation, it is possible to clearly see a guiding principle to resolve the “campaign finance problem” we all can readily apply. Today, we have lobbyists “buying” access to our representatives; activists on narrow issues or political extremes funding campaigns far from home. These actions threaten our underlying democratic election system. For example: Why should a New Yorker, who has his/her own representative in the Congress, be permitted to influence the election of a representative in Pennsylvania – or in other states. If the candidates for office in a congressional district receive substantial campaign donations from lobbyists and others who are seeking to expand their voting block on certain issues, how can we expect them to act once elected? Who will they really be representing?
Lobbying is an essential part of our democratic process. Every citizen, company, and organization should be permitted and encouraged to communicate with elected officials. They should, however, be clearly limited to using the power of their arguments to influence decisions and votes on key issues…they should not be permitted to “buy-pass” the real, true lobbying process with prior or promised campaign contributions.
Consequently, it is clear that we should encourage Congress to immediately replace the ill-conceived campaign finance law with a simple, effective, enforceable law. Simply stated: All campaign contributions should be strictly limited to only eligible voters for each elective office. [Note: Corporation and Unions are not voters...only individual citizens are potential eligible voters in local, county, state, and national elections!] Only such eligible voters in a congressional district should be able to make contributions to candidates for that office. Similarly, only citizens in a state, could make campaign contributions to candidates in statewide races. In a typical case, only Pennsylvanians could make contributions to Pennsylvania gubernatorial or senate campaigns. No Californian could make a contribution to try to elect another Senator outside California. They have two Senators to represent them. Pennsylvanians have two such elected officials to represent the residents inside Pennsylvania. Why should residents of Pennsylvania have their representation diminished (purchased through financially related access and influence) by non-Pennsylvanians?
Immediate disclosure of all campaign contributions and legally-based penalties for inappropriate contributions are essential to a change of this proposed nature. Many will say that this approach is not workable…by sighting campaign “workers” as “in-kind” contributions. That and other such distractions can be handled with a few simple rules. All workers not eligible to vote for the candidate must be compensated directly at fair market value for their efforts, or an equivalent amount of campaign funds must be donated to charity…maybe to a charity of the opposing candidate's choice. Such an approach would keep our friends from California from hiring hundreds of volunteers and sending them into Pennsylvania for ideological reasons to expand their representation on an issue.
There are solutions to all of these “administrative” problems if there is an overriding principle of “one man…one vote”…to assure a representative government as our founders intended. One of the major problems today is that the corrupt, convoluted system in place has attracted political operatives and candidates who are willing to play the current money game and have a vested interest in its perpetuation. Consequently, the challenge to move forward toward a "voter-based campaign contribution system" to foster and assure true representation, as designed by the constitution, is significant. But, the benefits of returning the government to the people and turning the politicians back into truly focused representatives and true public servants are certainly worth the effort.
Some will ask about national, state and local party contributions. If we apply the same principles to these organizations, we would limit contributions to state parties to state residents (not corporations…who do not vote; not unions…who do not vote, etc.). State funds could be used in statewide elections or in any efforts not related to any particular candidate. National party funds could be used to support national candidates (President and Vice President) and efforts not related to a specific candidate. This approach would limit the party organizations to issue refinement and advocacy of their principles and proposed programs. The facts are a lot of the money is now contributed to gain access…to potentially buy a result that could not be achieved with the power of a position or argument…might stop. And our candidates would have to effectively manage their resources to communicate with the votes who they seek to represent…not to mention the fact that they would have a real reason to spend more time with prospective voters instead of dining with a lobbyist in Washington, DC…or Ireland…or Bermuda.
The “creativity” of the political operatives cannot be underestimated. They have managed to subvert the current laws so only an approach as simple and clear cut as the principle that Campaign donations, of any kind, must be immediately disclosed and are limited to those made only by eligible voters for that candidate. There should be no opportunity for legal maneuvering to subvert a new law and disenfranchise voters.
Last, as we all know, the Supreme Court has defined speech broadly in rendering decisions on the current campaign finance landscape. Hopefully, the simple narrowing of this speech, when defined as donations, to only eligible voters will achieve the original objective of “one person – one vote”. This should be a sufficient argument to clear this hurdle and return us all to a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”. A government where each citizen is represented equitably at all levels of government. A government where we all know and truly appreciate who is being represented.