Should We Restrict Contributions Constituents Only?
I think so, but David Keating over at The Club For Growth disagrees:
I disagree with Mr. Keating for a number of reasons.
First, the idea that constituent-only contributions would protect incumbents doesn't seem to mesh with political reality as it is incumbents who receive the most out-of-district or out-of-state campaign contributions. Restricting contributions to constituents only would deny incumbent's their ability to use Washington D.C. connections to overwhelm their challengers with money. If both candidates have to depend on "the folks at home" for contibutions then both candidates on are an even keel.
As far as constituent only contributions being an assault on free association, I'm not very convinced by that argument. Already citizens of this country are limited to only supporting candidates in their district/state with their votes, what's the problem with telling citizens that they can only support those same candidates with their money?
Before Keating gives up on constituent-only contributions I think he should consider the plight of a place like North Dakota. We're a very small state population wise, so already our voice in Congress is limited. When you add into the mix the fact that North Dakota citizens aren't likely to match the political contributions made by big-money, out-of-state lobbyists. Given that our three members of Congress get the vast majority of their campaign contributions from out of state (Rep. Earl Pomeroy gets 72.5% of his money from out of state while Senators Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan are at 93.9% and 92.2% respectively) we North Dakotans have to wonder who these guys are really representing. North Dakotans or out-of-state interests?
At the end of the day these political leaders are only supposed to represent their constituents in Congress and no one else. Given that reality, I don't see why it's a bad idea to limit the people who have influence over these political leaders to constituents only.
While it sounds nice as a concept, it is detached from reality. At best it is yet another way to protect incumbents. At worst, it is another assault on the freedom of association.
The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble."
It seems to me clear that the people have the right to assemble support for a candidate they like, whether they live in the district or not. Votes taken in Congress affect everyone, not just those in the district.
Someone who believes in limited government should not be advocating laws to limit the people's right and ability to change the government, which is exactly what this would do.
I disagree with Mr. Keating for a number of reasons.
First, the idea that constituent-only contributions would protect incumbents doesn't seem to mesh with political reality as it is incumbents who receive the most out-of-district or out-of-state campaign contributions. Restricting contributions to constituents only would deny incumbent's their ability to use Washington D.C. connections to overwhelm their challengers with money. If both candidates have to depend on "the folks at home" for contibutions then both candidates on are an even keel.
As far as constituent only contributions being an assault on free association, I'm not very convinced by that argument. Already citizens of this country are limited to only supporting candidates in their district/state with their votes, what's the problem with telling citizens that they can only support those same candidates with their money?
Before Keating gives up on constituent-only contributions I think he should consider the plight of a place like North Dakota. We're a very small state population wise, so already our voice in Congress is limited. When you add into the mix the fact that North Dakota citizens aren't likely to match the political contributions made by big-money, out-of-state lobbyists. Given that our three members of Congress get the vast majority of their campaign contributions from out of state (Rep. Earl Pomeroy gets 72.5% of his money from out of state while Senators Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan are at 93.9% and 92.2% respectively) we North Dakotans have to wonder who these guys are really representing. North Dakotans or out-of-state interests?
At the end of the day these political leaders are only supposed to represent their constituents in Congress and no one else. Given that reality, I don't see why it's a bad idea to limit the people who have influence over these political leaders to constituents only.
Eddie_the_Hated
Spartacus
goon
Proof
robert108
The Whistler
