This page was last updated on May 30, 2012.
Cut abuses in government; Michael Von Hedemann; Beaver County Times; May 24, 2012. Along with others, this letter appeared on the BCT website on May 24, 2012, but did not appear in the print edition until May 30, 2012.
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“Having term limits for elected office would do much to cut the abuses of power in government. Also, anyone seeking office should only be allowed to spend an equal amount of money as their rival. No donations or gifts.”
[RWC] I used to believe as Mr. Hedemann, but I came to believe imposing term limits was like throwing out the baby with the bath water. Sure, term limits would limit the amount of time a bad/corrupt politician could serve, but they would do the same for good/honest representatives. We already have the means to get rid of bad politicians. It’s called voting for the good guys/gals. When we continue to elect bad representatives, we have only ourselves to blame. That said, I don’t have a problem with term limits for chief executives, like presidents, governors, and mayors of “large” cities.
I tend to disagree with campaign funding laws other than those that require full disclosure of contributors and their contributions. Most campaign “reform” laws tend to infringe on free speech and the recommendations by Mr. Hedemann are no different. Mr. Hedemann’s proposal would trample the Constitution. My following comments should not be interpreted to mean correcting the problems I see would make Mr. Hedemann’s proposal palatable or constitutional.
Mr. Hedemann wrote, “anyone seeking office should only be allowed to spend an equal amount of money as their rival. No donations or gifts.” OK, but what about money spent by individuals and groups who support their candidate indirectly by purchasing their own advertising, organizing, et cetera? What about the press supporting a candidate by tailoring its “news” and op-ed pieces? What about candidates running against incumbents who already have name recognition? Mr. Hedemann’s rules would give the incumbent another advantage over his challenger.
“Simply put, if they have money they can use a set amount for election campaigning. Conversely, if a person is eligible to run but lacks the funds then a group made up of ordinary citizens randomly (and anonymously) chosen should allot the set amount of funds from a general election fund.”
[RWC] In case you missed it, Mr. Hedemann wants a secret (“anonymously chosen”) “group made up of ordinary citizens” to disburse taxpayer dollars to candidates. It also appears Mr. Hedemann would penalize candidates “if they have money” by forcing them to pay for their campaign while other candidates would be funded by you and me. Will taxpayers be forced to finance the “general election fund” or will it be voluntary? If taxpayers are forced to finance the fund, it will mean taxpayers will be forced to “contribute” to candidates they oppose.
“This may seem like the taxpayers are being put upon (again), but it would be less costly than what’s spent by someone who is flying around in our planes, using our money (under the guise of performing their duties) to campaign for election, instead of using their own money (or the set amount) to run.
“This same committee of regular voters should be in charge of tracking every penny in all the candidates’ purses being used in running a campaign. No superpacs, No more undocumented millions of less than $100 donations. Everyone is on a level spending field.”
[RWC] “Everyone is on a level spending field?” No way, and who says they should be? The more you try to control an activity, the more you drive that activity underground. Remember Prohibition?
“Also, remember the ‘Founders’ were unpaid for serving.”
[RWC] Not true. According to the Congressional Research Service, members of Congress received a per diem of 6$, effective 3/4/1789 (The first day the U.S. Constitution took effect.), while Congress was in session.
© 2004-2012 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.