-------------------
Reader Mark Van Noy emailed the following analysis:
What is the difference between campaign contributions given in the normal course of such matters and those given by a lobbyist as quid pro quo in return for specific actions? I suggest that there may be subtle distinctions but, ultimately, those distinctions are without substantive difference. Whenever a lawmaker is aware that a person or organization has contributed significant amounts of money, directly or indirectly, to his campaign or his lifestyle, there is an explicit or implicit bribe, both intended and understood. Those politicians who hope to continue to benefit from the largesse of significant contributors will act according to this shared understanding.
We’ve tried the fatally flawed remedies of McCain-Feingold and they failed massively. This law should be rescinded, if for no other reason than to publicly recognize its dismal failure. Frankly, I don’t believe that there was ever a real intent on the part of Congress that McCain-Feingold would be effective. It was intended to be eyewash and was consciously designed to be such. Of course, no one would ever admit to this. However, a rational case cannot be made that the unmistakable fact that these laws could never be effective for their ostensible purpose escaped the observation of keenly insightful professional politicians. Can people who are sensitive to the extensively nuanced implications of thirty-year-old writings of Supreme Court nominees fail to see the blatantly obvious implications of knowing the amounts and sources of major contributions? No, and Americans should stop allowing them to maintain this silly charade.
McCain-Feingold doesn’t work because it does not break the linkage in the minds of recipients between contributions received and their sources. Wherever this linkage exists, there also exists the essence of bribery, which is the implicit or explicit expectation of certain actions or positions to be taken by the recipient in return for the contribution. Therefore, the solution is to break this linkage. The recipient or his agents should never be allowed to know the amount given or by whom it was given. Once we effectively prevent this knowledge from reaching politicians, we have broken the back of political bribery and influence peddling. Until we take this essential step, all the ‘eyewash’ legislation and political posturing that may arise in the wake of the Abramoff scandal will never effectively banish the evils of bribery and influence peddling from the political arena.
How might we accomplish such disassociation between contributions and contributors? Actually, it’s not difficult. One method might be to set up officially approved, special trusts for each candidate and office-holder into which all contributions from all sources at all times shall be deposited. A blind trust would be maintained for each candidate and office holder for the duration of his campaign and until he is defeated or leaves office, at which time the balance would be transferred to the general fund and the trust closed.
In this model, trustees or any private person would be prohibited by law from ever divulging to anyone the source or amounts of political contributions; even their own. The Justice Department would supervise the program. Politicians would be prohibited from seeking or knowingly accepting this information. Nevertheless, politicians should be allowed to accept reasonable gifts that don’t exceed specific amounts within a given period to allow them to accept dinners and other reasonable and customary offerings while not being allowed to accept lavish offerings that tempt their attention to duty.
Visit MoveOff Network Members
Back to summary...
