Those considering running for public office, from the local school board to high federal office, must ask themselves many questions before they “throw their hat in the ring.”  Can I take the heat when a reporter asks tough questions on live TV?  Do I have the diplomatic skills to change the mind of entrenched opponents, or misinformed constituents?  Can I afford to live on the (often-laughable) stipend provided for a job that is, in essence, a twenty-four hour a day, seven day a week commitment to the People I represent?  

     Perhaps the most important question you must ask yourself is am I willing to take “donations?” 

     If you answer yes, you hurdle a key moral obstacle to electoral success and you are off to the races, an upturned palm preceding you into the rarefied world of politics, power, money, prestige, and intrigue.  If you answer no, the probability that you will win an election immediately plummets into the realm of the ridiculous, and continued pursuit of any elected position in “public service” increasingly appears to border on the insane.   

     Perhaps this sad reality is what makes Will Rogers’ statement about elections funny even today, “We always want the best man to win in an election.  Unfortunately he never runs.” 

     Virtually anyone you ask will agree that America’s system of campaign finance is little more than a thinly veiled system of institutionalized bribery, and that without making a substantial “donation,” citizens have precious little hope of influencing their own “representative,” even en mass.  Almost ten years ago, a Los Angeles Times poll of 816 adults found that 72%[1] favored campaign finance reform providing free or discounted airtime, setting voluntary limits on fundraising and spending, and prohibiting candidates from accepting contributions from political action committees or raising most of their money from outside of their state. 

     There have been many attempts to stop government corruption.  The 1907 Tillman Act prohibited campaign “contributions” from banks.  The first House finance disclosure law passed in 1910 and an amendment in 1911 included the Senate.  In 1925, the Federal Corrupt Practices Act strengthened disclosure rules - but increased spending limits.  The 1939 Hatch Act and its 1940 amendments regulated primary elections and limited contributions and expenditures.  In 1947, the Taft-Hartley Act barred unions and corporations from contributing to campaigns.  The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 required broad disclosure of federal campaign financing.  The Watergate Scandal led to numerous amendments to the act in 1974, creating a mechanism for public financing of campaigns, regulating campaigns, and creating an enforcement agency, the Federal Election Commission.  Even though, the US Congress repeatedly passed laws purporting to regulate contributions to elections campaigns between 1907 and 1974[2], even today, “donations” continue to pour into the pockets of our “representatives."

     Hypothetically, any gift received by a representative of the People of the United States should belong to the People, not their representative, especially in the context of a real or perceived conflict of interest.  Without fully transparent means for the public financing of elections and meaningful penalties for violations, America's system of "campaign donations" will continue to create the appearance, if not the reality of blatant bribery, and the votes of our "representatives" will continue to favor those making "campaign donations" (including foreign governments), rather than the People of the United States.  

Originally published May 2009, updated April 2013

[1] http://1stam.umn.edu/main/pubop/campaign.htm, accessed May 18, 2009.