What happens if pols can only take donations from their own districts?

[cally]

One of the reforms mentioned by Newt Gingrich and others is that politicians can only accept money from their own districts. This suggestion was repeated by Bob Schieffer this morning. I'm surprised a Republican would push this because my first reaction is that it would benefit Democrats and urban areas.

The ATM machines of politicians is the SF Bay Area, NY, and several other large urban areas. Politicians come into these areas and hold fundraisers to raise large amounts of cash. I recently got an email for a campaign to try to raise 10 percent of the amount needed for Democratic challengers across the country from SF Bay Area fundraisers. I assume there are similar efforts on the Republican side and in other urban areas. The proposal would end such fundraisers but local politicians could raise the cash for their own PACs and use that money to aid other races or GOTV efforts across the country. Boxer, Feinstein, Arnie, Pelosi, etc. would gain advantage over other non-urban areas.

Right now corporations can donate to any campaign across the country. I'm not sure what the proposal is to limit corporate donations. If they can only donate where their headquarters are then this will severely limit their power. I assume all will still be able to donate to the RNC and the DNC so it may increase the power of the national political parties.

The current political climate is dominated by the southern states and more rural states. If urban politicians can raise more money then they can gain political power. That's good for liberals and Democrats.

Opinions?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. My conman would love it

as WalMart headquarters is in his district and the WalMart foundations are his chief contributors. Could be that the repukes are banking on having big buisnesses in their areas for bankrolling their campaigns and hoping there won't be enough contributors to help the Dems.

[Coastie for Truth]

3. It would have to be tied in to major limits on "non-individual"

(i.e., corporate, trade association) contributions.

The "challenge" -- allow unions but not businesses.

[Coastie for Truth]

2. I would love it - with some safeguards

Like - third parties could not collect money outside the district and run an ad with that money for the Candidate.

I was once shaken down in Pennsylvania to make a major contribution to Congressman Paul Findley (Repug - Illinois) -- because I have an ethnic name that he "needed" in his ads.

[cally]

5. The union money would be a problem

I wonder if it would be worded so that they could only donate to politicians where their headquarters are?

[Coastie for Truth]

20. Or based on union membership in a Congressional District

[Yupster]

17. Reagan pushed this proposal back in the late seventies

The Democratic Party was against it because they were worried about inner city districts where there are very few donations and even though the overwhelming number of voters would be Democratic, the 5-10 richest donors could all be Republican. That was the fear when it was proposed 25 years ago anyway.

[dogman]

4. Because they,ve set up defense contractors in their Districts.

There should be uniform public funding with caps and no private contributions. The problem is it would require a Constitutional Ammendment as we've seen in the argument to outlaw lobbyists.

[ThomWV]

6. The President Get The Most Money

Senators second, Congressmen third, state pols way down the list.

You want to see Presidential candidates be the only one who can avail themselves to the good intentins and pocketbooks of all America?

[cally]

7. Fundraising currently follows this pattern.

I would prefer public funding and many different reforms. I'm not advocating this one. I'm trying to understand the effect of a proposal out there.

[Coastie for Truth]

8. Clean Money Initiative

We are working on this in CA

[ptolle]

11. good luck on that

As are Maine, Vermont, Arizona and Massachusetts. Vermont, I believe, by legislation, the rest by ballot initiative. I'd love to see this become a nationwide issue.I'd love to see California get this done that'd almost assuredly guarantee more national attention to the concept so good luck.

[ThomWV]

9. Agree

My point is that limiting it to the area served you institutionalize what is now happening.

Gotta be another way. Keep lookin'. Report back ....

:~)

[northzax]

24. and it is the ultimate incumbent protection measure

once you get the machine running, no one can touch you, even more so than now. plus, it disenfranchises the resisdents of the district of columbia even more. I don't have a senator to contribute to.

in addition, would volunteering be considered a donation? If I live in DC, can I volunteer (which is a donation of another sort) on a campaign in Virginia? unclear.

[liberal N proud]

10. Corruption would be contained with in local districts of states.

You wouldn't have one man owning dozens of legislators

[HereSince1628]

12. What happens is the next Abramhoff finds friends in each district

and sends money to them to give to their representative.

[cally]

14. Under current law, you have to say that

money you contribute comes from your own funds and not anyone else. I know some break the law, but that's true of all these restrictions.

[HereSince1628]

19. I guess that's my point. Enforcement to the rules is so poor

it's seems pointless.

[ThomWV]

13. Ok - Public Funding and 3-Way Split

Make funding of national elections be public only.
Take the total pot of mone and divide it into 3 equal pots
Pot 1 goes to Presidential campaigns and is divided by how many people are running.

Pot 2 goes to the senate and it is divided into 33 parts, each part being alloted to a state holding a Senatorial election where it would be divided among the candidates.

Pot 3 goes to the House candidates, divided by 435 and then each segment evenly divided between the candidates for each district. That would be a sum equal to exactly jack shit, as it sould be.

[Igel]

15. I'm not sure it would benefit urban politicians.

Define "their own districts". If Kerry's running for president, "his own district" is the US; if he's running for the Senate, his district is Mass. You'd also have to forbid politicians from mingling local and less-local campaign contributions. No more building up a war chest for a run presidency, and then repurposing that money (or leftovers) for a senate or other more local race.

It would, no doubt, have interesting consequences. I think it would reinforce the local dominance of whatever party's in power, and the dominant strain of that party. If you're in a red district and a blue politician, you can't count on outside funding to beef up your war chest. It would also have an effect on the primaries. If you're wishy-washy in your party, and running in a hardline district, you'd have trouble running against a hardline candidate. It would probably reinforce the incumbents' advantage.

But it's hard to predict exactly how that would play out in practice--it depends on which party (and strain within that party) engages in more cross-district campaigning.

[cally]

16. Good point about helping incumbents

They would have an easier time raising money in their own district. It would hinder challengers since they would probably have a more difficult time raising money since they are less well known.

[leftofthedial]

18. no private contributions PERIOD

public financing is the only way to go.

[Silverhair]

23. That would lead to tyranny.

Your idea would result in the gov't deciding who was and wasn't a legitimate candidate to receive money, so the only ones on the ballot would be those with the gov't stamp of approval to run for gov't office.

You would completely eliminate the occasional third party or independent candidate who comes from nowhere to temporarily give the system a good shaking.

[leftofthedial]

25. bullshit

there are many ways to ensure fair access to the process. a petition process, for example. Current federal matching funds are an example. They are a fleck of spit in a bucket of raw sewage

your way leads to the same bribery-based system we have now. Corporations and Corporate executives will just open "branch offices" in more districts so they can queer the deal. Money does not equal free speech.

[Silverhair]

26. Even the petition process costs money.

You have to get the word out that you are trying to get certified via petition, and why people should sign the petition. That takes money, or a free ride with the media (Like Perot got in 92.)

And there is a free speech issue. If I want to tell the country that X should be elected, that is my right. Political speech is the most protected of all speech.

[Cleita]

21. It would get rid of my Congressman, Bill Thomas, who

according to Open Secrets gets only 18.9% of his money from individual contributions. The majority of his money comes from out of state and from the health care industry and other corporate donors.

We know whose bread he's buttering back, don't we? Also, he is the Chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee. He's a totally bought off whore.

[Just Me]

22. Why can't we just cap total receipts?

:shrug:

Cap total receipts and give EVERYONE equal teevee time. Why not? :shrug:

[AnnieBW]

27. We Couldn't Donate To Paul Hackett

Chuck Pennachio, or other Dems who are working to defeat the Repugs, unless we lived in those states.

[dsc]

28. This would cripple LGBT citizens

We are concentrated in urban areas with politicians that largely reflect our views. Money is our only effective weapon against the Inhofs and Santorums of this world.