I have to say I oppose RT Rybak's suggestions that every contribution of
any amount be reported, and that these be put on the internet within a few
hours.
My opposition is not because I favor secret contributions, but because of
concerns for the practicality of doing this. I don't think it will work,
and I don't think it would change anything.
The amount of record-keeping and form-filling that is currently required is
difficult, to have to do this for every contribution would be
overwhelming. It's already sometimes difficult for candidates to find
someone willing to take on the work & responsibility of treasurer; with
this change it would become even harder to find anyone to take on this
job! I've been a political treasurer for over 20 years now, and it can be
tiresome. Just this week I had to file 5 different finance reports. If I
had to report every contribution, I'd still be working to finish those
reports. There is only so much time volunteers are willing to donate to a
campaign!
And then to have to put this on the internet, and very quickly -- I can see
a whole lot of problems with that. (Look what problems Steve Brandt is
having just getting paper copies of these reports.) The idea of preparing
contributor files, in appropriate formats, and somehow getting them to the
government agencies involved just floors me! For example, just how would
I even get these files to them? Email -- Ha! Remember that they don't
even use fax machines yet, you still have to submit these reports on
paper. I'd be mailing a floppy disk to them. (And then IBM or Mac
floppy? What file format? etc.)
And then we have the problem of these government agencies taking files
from all these floppy disks, and combining them, and reformatting them into
a web-accessible format. This by the same office that is now taking 10
days to make paper copies available. I believe that the Hennepin County
office is a one-person department, with part-time help from another clerk
at filing time. How many additional staff is RT proposing to make this
plan work?
Finally, I don't think that this would solve the problems. I really don't
think that disclosing the names of small contributors would have any effect
(except on them: additional requests, etc.). The big players that RT is
concerned about (developers, corporate executives, lobbyists, etc.) are
already giving more than the limit, and are listed on the
reports. Listing small contributors wouldn't make any difference. They
don't influence candidates. (At least, not by contributions. They have
influence for their help, their endorsement, their volunteering, their
talking to other voters, the ideas they give to candidates, etc. But not
for their financial power!)
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
