Richard Chandler wrote:
> 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.
In principle, I agree. Especially when you are talking
national offices. I have received no fewer than 15 requests
for money from the First Lady (or her husband on her behalf)
to help her win the open NY senate seat.
However, it does get a little gray is when someone, say a
small business owner has a business in one town but lives in
another, or at the city level, has a business in Ward 6 but
lives in Ward 4 (the brain lobe storing my college
statistics formulas is a bit fogged, so I cannot immediately
invoke the finite number of possible combinations this
example could create; also, the stated example is in no way
intended to endorse or malign any particular city ward).
Even though they cannot vote in the Ward 6 election, they
certainly have a vested interest in who wins, and preventing
them from offering financial, voluteer, or name recognition
support seems a bit unfair. Especially in a city so given to
ward provincialism. This is certainly true in downtown
Minneapolis where even if you live and work downtown, your
place of residence and place of employment can easily be in
two separate wards with two separate Councilmembers.
richard carney
st. paul
ps: Well back to it, say is Mrs. Clinton's first name
spelled with one or two "l's"?
