It’s interesting that there is a criminal probe going on into whether Christine O’Donnell used campaign contributions to support herself, essentially making campaigning her job. Detractors note that she has no apparent independent source of funds and some disgruntled former employees have ratted her out.
If she has committed an offence it is in a way more shocking that it is an offence than that she did it.
Think about the implications- anybody that is going to make a serious run for any office is going to have to take at least 6 months to take a run at it where they have no other job. Politics has been taken over by millionaires and billionaires and a big part of that is that nobody else can really afford to run for office, not just because they can’t spend a hundred million dollars of their own money to run, but also because most people can’t take six months away from a job and likely have nothing to go back to if unsuccessful.
So I see the real scandal here is that the government has de facto outlawed anybody that isn’t a millionaire from running for office.
It would probably help the system work if some middle class and even lower class people got into office.
When self made billionaires run for office, I think that is generally good and would like to see more of it- you can’t become a self made billionaire without skills.
Millionaires and old money people are a lot more iffy. Becoming highly successful in a narrow niche requires one good idea, rudimentary skills and some luck.
People born to wealth are more often than not probably going to be the worst choices both in government and in business. If everything is handed to them and they get spoon-fed right through their Harvard degree, then get some fast-track position in a company, the first time that they ever have to exercise independent judgment there may be a great deal at stake. There may also be a lack of appropriate risk aversion due to a charmed life. There may be an unwillingness to compromise because of a sense of entitlement and because it had never been necessary. In politics such a person will be making decisions about a real world outside their protective bubble that they’ve never lived in.
The three Kennedy brothers are an exception to that of course, and I suspect being Catholic has something to do with that. Real world snares and temptations are a more practical in orientation but if you see the world as being filled with snares and temptations from the outset then real world problems are probably less of an intellectual leap.
People that have had more experience in the real world would probably be an asset in congress. Not that Christine O’Donnell has a whole lot of that, or even any good ideas, but the obstacle for her is an obstacle for many.
We also need incentives for people that are not ideologues to run for office. A single minded person like O’Donnell may run despite the economic downside because that is the kind of thing that she wants to do.
On the other hand the exact kind of person that you would want running for office is going to be thinking about how they will pay their bills and provide for their families.
Having a political system that self-selects for irresponsible people to run for office and for responsible people to stay away is stupidity.
I would go further that simply allowing bills to be paid out of contributions- if there is money left at the end then it should be available after the campaign to support defeated candidates,and to continue to support elected ones until their first government cheque.
There will be a balance here so that people won’t become millionaires by running for office and losing. I’d think something like, the greater of 100 grand and the gross income of the candidate for the two previous years, but not more than $500,000, and indexed for inflation. The idea is that if the person has had the guts to run for office and tried to make their country better they should not be financially crippled for doing so and providing for them for a couple of years after gives a reasonable time to find appropriate employment.
So if O’Donnell is guilty of the offence of being a non-millionaire running for public office, I hope that she gets the statutory minimum. I despise her because she is venomous and a cretin, not because she’s poor. Using an election law loophole designed to keep the poor and middle classes from office to get at her is an elitist cheap shot. In some ways I’d like to see a constitutional challenge, but the problem with that is that although it would be clearly unconstitutional to explicitly prohibit the poor from running for public office, the courts won’t do anything that amounts to writing their own legislation about what is fair.
If anybody else would like to see a simple potato farmer on the ways and means committee raising hell with common sense, this is a good time to speak up.
One remedy to the problem of personal finances when running for office is for there to be separate donations to support the candidate personally. That presumably would be privately arranged.
I don’t like this second solution because it is likely to be off record, likely to involve quid pro quo, and lead to conflicts of interest. If done by the political parties it leads to candidates being under the thumb of the establishment. People that want to be game changers won’t get backing.
Much better to have such donations automatically counted towards campaign contributions and protect the candidate’s independence and integrity. The contributors have already voluntarily voted with their dollars without requiring the candidate to be beholden to or to change anything and that is much better.
Ask an honest man or woman that is a teacher, or has a modest law practice, or a farmer, or a factory worker what it would take to make running for office an acceptable financial risk and that is what we need to do.