Until we get real CFR, it appears we are going to have a continuing stream
of millionaires and celebrities run for office.
I also support the idea that if you can't vote in the election you can't
donate to a candidate in the election. Unfortunately I think outside groups
like the PACs, our unions and the Sierra Club wouldn't stand for it. Maybe
the law could be structured so they would be forced to have a local unit in
each district they wish to support a candidate in.
If we can't limit how much a candidate can raise from sources outside the
district, can the law direct it somewhat? No mass media with money raised
outside the district. Maybe just no drippy campaign TV ads during the
Vikings game.
Rich Chandler - Ward 9
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Kaplan
> "[Ciresi's] brethren in the legal community have not forsaken him.
> Lawyers and lobbyists across the country have given his campaign $666,000
> . . ."
> --Star Tribune (Sept. 9, 2000; p. A20).
>
> If we can't have real campaign finance reform, can't we at least require
> that contributions to candidates come from would-be constituents? What is
> the point of making Congress based on geographic representation when House
> and Senate races are increasingly financed with "outside" money?
>
> Such a plan would even be easy to implement: if you vote (or have a legal
> domicile) in the candidate's district, you can contribute to their
> campaign; if you don't, you can't (rich, out-of-state relatives can
> provide plenty of moral support, just no money). PAC's would be out of
> luck.
>
> Finally, limit what independently wealthy candidates can spend, so
> Congress isn't dominated by the Corzine's (NJ) and Dayton's of the world.
> Since the Supreme Court has struck down absolute limitations on spending,
> why not instead limit candidates to supplying a maximum % of their
> campaign's funds, say, 10%?
>
> Ross A. Kaplan
> Fulton neighborhood
