Lost Password?
No account yet? Register

Games

Arcade
Sudoku
Daniels: Financing campaigns for public office PDF Print E-mail
Written by John Daniels   
Saturday, 28 November 2009
Many people are concerned about the poor performance of our elected representative. Many point to how campaigns for public office are currently financed as major contributing factor to poor government. These well meaning people support public financing of political campaigns as a solution.


This option brings about increased cost, unqualified candidates (get on the money train) and other various fraud schemes. Additionally the Supreme Court's concern is that any new rules can not limit speech.


The following four simple steps will limit cost and meet the Court's objection. Please support this for a California initiative.


1. No individual may contribute funding and/or services to a political/election campaign of another individual for public office unless he/she is eligible to vote for that individual candidate.


2. Political parties, companies, labor unions, political action committees and groups of individuals cannot vote, and therefore they cannot contribute to the election campaign of an individual for public office.


3. No individual can contribute to election campaign(s) in any one year, an amount exceeding his/her reported federal income tax adjusted gross income for the previous tax year. This includes candidates themselves. Contributions to political campaigns are not tax-deductible.


4. Political parties, companies, labor unions, political action committees and groups of individuals may provide any amount of financial or other support, to educate and inform their employees, membership and the general public on any issue in public discussion. All communications must identify the sponsor. In addition, no mention will be made of any public office holder(s), and /or candidate(s) position(s) on or related to any issue(s) under public discussion.


John Daniels lives in Lakeport.

Trackback(0)
Comments (3)Add Comment
Thought provoking Mr. Daniels, and there seems
written by Donna Christopher, November 28, 2009
to be some good ideas in your commentary. I'm still greatly troubled by the Supremes belief that money equals speech. Regarding your point #4 - would this be the fast talking, small print version of disclosure we now enjoy?
Donna, what ever
written by nonewtaxes, November 29, 2009
I have no pride of authorship. Correct as you see fit and forward to your elected national and state representative with endorsement support.

I believe disclosure should be specific and included in first and last sentence. Democratic Party is not specific; Lake County Demoratic Party is approprate.

john daniels
Free speech.
written by James, November 30, 2009
Is in the hands of them that have the gold.

Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy
 
< Prev   Next >
Powered By Page_Cache by Ircmaxell
Generated in 0.73562002182007 Seconds