Campaign Finance Reform for Unions and Corporations

Should a union that represents no workers in New Hampshire be allowed to contribute to elections in New Hampshire?

Should a corporation that has no employees in New Hampshire, sells no products in New Hampshire, nor pays taxes in New Hampshire be allowed to contribute to elections in New Hampshire?

Campaign Finance Reform should be about Insiders versus Outsiders, not hard versus soft money.

An Example:

Three entities contribute to a campaign.  One contributes $10,000 worth of time, one contributes $10,000 worth of resources and one contributes $10,000 in cash.  Which has violated current campaign finance laws?

The entity that contributed $10,000 worth of time was a union that does NOT represent any workers in that government district.

The entity that contributed $10,000 worth of resources was a corporation that does NOT have any workers, nor sales, nor taxes paid in that government district represented by the candidate.

The entity that contributed $10,000 dollars was a US citizen that lives, votes, pays taxes in the district represented by the candidate.

Question:

Why is it wrong for unions and corporations to affect the outcome of an election?  Must they live under the laws and regulations passed by the elected official?  Do they pay taxes to the government run by that elected official?  The union and the corporation are Outsiders and the US citizen is an Insider that can vote and must pay taxes and must abide by the laws in that election district.

Answer:

Campaign Finance Reform should be about Insiders versus Outsiders, not hard versus soft money.

 

Let’s apply a principle from  “Campaign Finance Reform for Individuals” to unions and corporations.  The principle is:

“If two people make the same money in a government district and pay the same taxes to that government, they should be allowed to make the same contributions in that district.  Even if only one of the two can vote in the district.”

An Example for People that Can Not Vote in a Government District:

Two people work in a election district, but only one can vote in that district.  Think of people who live in one district/state but work in another such as traveling sales people.

Person A represent the average constituent in the election district.  He makes $100K, pays $10K in taxes in that election district.  He contributes $100 to the election he can vote in.

If Person B who is not a constituent, represents Outsiders who are affected by the government in the election district.  He makes $100K and pays $10K in taxes in that election district.  He should be allowed to contribute $100 to that district.  If person B makes the 10 times the money or pays 10 times the taxes, he should be allowed to contribute 10 times the campaign contribution as person A.

What if Person B was a corporation?   What if Person B was a union?

Questions:

If a union represents 50 full time dues paying workers in that election district, shouldn’t they be allowed to contribute 50 times what the average voter contributes?

If a corporation employees 50 full time workers in that district, should they be allowed to do the same as the union?

If the corporation pays 100 times the taxes that the average voters in the election district pays in taxes, should they be allowed to contribute 100 times what the average voter contributed?

If the union represents or the corporation employs workers with wages totaling 100 times what the average voter in the election district makes in wages, can they contribute 100 times what the average voter contributed?

If the corporation has income of 200 times what the average voter makes in wages, can the corporation contribute 200 times what the average voter contributed?

Contributions for corporations and unions should be limited to how much money is contributed by the voters.  If the voters volunteer their time and resources and do NOT contribute money, then corporations and union are effectively shut out of the election process.  Thus the voters in any district control how much involvement unions and corporations will have in any given election.

Conclusion

People that can vote in an election have unlimited contributions to the candidates running in that district.

Voters determine how much money is spent in an election.

People that can NOT vote in an election are not allowed to contribute time or resources to that election.

Unions that represent their members in a government district and are affected by that government’s taxes, laws and regulations have some limited contribution to the candidates running in that district.

Corporations with employees in a government district and are affected by that government’s taxes, laws and regulations have some limited contribution to the candidates running in that district based on what Insiders contribute.

Unions and corporations that are NOT affected by that government may NOT make contributions to the candidates running in that district.  Not time, not money and not resources.

Final Question

So which campaign finance laws do you want to live under?  The existing hard money and soft money laws with unlimited contributions by unions and corporations? Or would you rather have the campaign finance laws regulate contributions based on Insiders versus Outsiders?