Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Special interests keep finding ways to sneak around the will of the people--especially when most campaign financing laws are riddled with loopholes.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Stopping Campaign Money Corruption

By Jim Hightower, AlterNet. Posted April 16, 2005.


Special interests keep finding ways to sneak around the will of the people--especially when most campaign financing laws are riddled with loopholes.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Jim Hightower

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

It's been said that where there's a will--there are at least a thousand won'ts.

Again and again the American people have expressed their will to stop the corruption of American politics and government by big money interests. Yet, the won'ts keep finding ways to sneak around the will of the people--especially when most campaign financing laws are riddled with loopholes.

You can find a glaring example in the current New York City race for mayor. Under a flimsy reform law, individuals can donate "only" $4,950 to any particular candidate for citywide office there. Of course, the vast majority of New Yorkers don't have anywhere near that amount to give to politicians, but those who do--particularly those special interests who want favors from the next mayor--find the limit too restrictive. So these sneaks have found a way to say "won't."

It turns out that the largest group of people giving the maximum donation to mayoral candidates is not CEOs, lawyers, or lobbyists, but women listing their occupations as "homemakers." Odd. Odder yet, when contacted, many of these homemakers were clueless about the race--and some weren't even living in the city. In fact, they are the wives of businessmen who're using a loophole that says wives and even children of a donor can also make donations of $4,950 each.

"That was handled through my husband's office," said one of these proxy donors. "I'm not familiar with it." Another, who lives in Florida, said that her contribution "was really not mine, it's my husband's"--and nine members of her family were also enlisted in her husband's game of sneak. One other unaware donor said, "And this was a contribution to whom?"

There is one reform that actually stops these sneaks. It's the public financing alternative, and it's being adopted by states and cities all across the country. To bring it to your area, call Public Campaign: 202-293-0222.

Digg!

Jim Hightower is the best-selling author of "Let's Stop Beating Around the Bush," from Viking Press. For more information, visit jimhightower.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Follow The Money out instead of watching it come in
Posted by: Meremark on Apr 20, 2005 8:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jim, in general your comments and positions are too kind and decent for confronting barbarians, in my opinion. I say call criminality a crime and level charges. Especially articles of impeachment. Wide impeachments, beyond the putative head honcho in the Evil Office of The Fright House.
But on the topic generally, not your styling this time. Let's discuss a flipped view, seing to regulate campaign spending instead of campaign income.
Such as - Proposed: Collect funds any which way BUT there is a no-spending ban on paid broadcast political ads.
Exactly parallel to the existing ban on paid broadcast tobacco ads. Because 1- The 'product' is addictive, (either 'disputation' or 'nicotine'); and 2- The 'product' is a public health crisis, (perpetual celebrated conflict causes disease in civic spirit).
If it's legal to restrain tobacco's 'free speech' then it's legal to restrain political liars' 'free speech.' It only bans broadcast media anyway -- radio and tv. All print media remains available for advertisings -- direct mail, poster, billboard, lawnsign, sides of racecars. Skywriting. Flyers. Newspapers, magazines, etc., (and the internet, because the voter chooses to go there and be exposed -- it is not imposed radio waves in the public airshed).
There were great political campaigns before broadcasting was ever invented. Candidates wrote their positions and countered their opponents'. Stood on stumps and spoke movingly (or not) to an audience who could then take the measure of the mental cogency on display. (Let tv news still freely show newsworthy public appearances and stunts of candidates, it just means the candidate actually has to appear in public to be 'televised.')
Finally, and you can test this claim: Every voter, one hundred percent, (tongue firmly in cheek), agrees with the idea: I want political ads NOT TO INTERRUPT my favorite program. Counting voters I surveyed. And the very next thing many of them said was: But how will I learn what the candidates stand for?
Well now. Here, read this Or read this about the 11th Annual TV Turnoff Week, April 25 - May 1, 2005....
(P.S. One hundred percent of politicos surveyed oppose my idea to ban buying broadcast's visceral 'special effects' to campaign with -- that right there suggests it might be a good thing to try.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]