U.S. Debt Could Be Cut by Sending Leftover Campaign Cash to Uncle Sam
Robert Schmuhl
Correspondent
Posted:
07/31/10
While senators and House members look for ways to tackle, if not tame, the gargantuan federal debt, they might look directly in the mirror for one source of available money.
A principal criticism of American politics today is that there are too many dollars bankrolling the electoral system, making many races for public office overly expensive. Ironically, at the same time campaigns are awash with cash, the federal government is drowning in a sea of red ink.
How, you ask, could the political situation help the governmental one? It's not that difficult.
If you study the financial reports of elected officials and candidates, you quickly discover how philanthropic politicians can be to fellow politicians. Contributions from someone's individual committee or political action committee enriches the election coffers of another office holder or aspirant.
In mid-April, the Center for Responsive Politics released a study stating that in 2009, nine candidates for the Senate or House received more than $200,000 from "candidate committees and leadership PACs," with Republican Senate candidate and current Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri getting $384,453 and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) depositing $294,949 for his re-election effort. Back in 1993, the year before another consequential midterm election, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) was the leading recipient of such contributions at $37,000 -- one-tenth of the current top amount.
Is it hopelessly idealistic and electorally romantic to wonder why the Federal Election Commission allows one politician to raise so much money for the sake of another? A check of the FEC's campaign laws spells out in black-and-white that these contributions are permissible.
But what if new, reform-styled regulations restricted the money raised by a federal candidate or a candidate's PAC to that candidate's own use during the specific election cycle? The rule could apply to candidates running for president, the Senate or the House. Any money not spent during the candidate's actual, time-defined campaign would go directly to the federal treasury to pay down the debt.
This modest proposal would help control the amount of money raised and spent on campaigns, diminish the influence one politician exerts over another -- and help reduce what the government owes.
As things stand now, a politician can accept lucrative gifts -- then turn right around and give that money away. Newsweek reports that Mitt Romney has raised $5.8 million through June 30 and spent $324,256 "on competitive GOP races in almost every state," while Sarah Palin has received $3.39 million, with $137,500 going to "Senate and House candidates nationwide."
On the Democratic side, while New York Rep. Charles Rangel fights for his political life amid complaints over alleged money-related violations, candidates on the receiving end of his largess have been assiduously unloading his gifts, with more than $400,000 earmarked for charities, according to a recent tally.
Though he's certainly not alone in this regard, Rangel, former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, acquired some of his power in the House in part because he's been able to spread so much money around to congressional colleagues and candidates over several years.
We often read that relatively few House races -- 50 or so out of 435 this year -- are genuinely competitive. This means that shoe-ins of both parties can become piggy banks in races for allies where money might matter. But does this situation make sense at a time when so many people think political spending is out of control and, in some cases, ethically questionable?
Let's solve the problem by restricting gifts to the candidates themselves and by donating any remaining dollars at the conclusion of a campaign to the government's very scarlet bottom line. Among other advantages, such a scheme would help bridge the gap between campaigning and governing, since the campaign now receives the preponderance of energy and attention.
When Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) announced he wouldn't seek re-election this year, Hoosier Democrats became curious about two matters: What the retiring senator would do in the future, and what would happen to the nearly $13 million war chest he's amassed. These proposed new rules would put an end to the latter concern.
In fact, you never know, but the fiscally minded Bayh might have even been pleased to see the money go to a worthy cause -- the federal debt he's criticized for so many years.
A principal criticism of American politics today is that there are too many dollars bankrolling the electoral system, making many races for public office overly expensive. Ironically, at the same time campaigns are awash with cash, the federal government is drowning in a sea of red ink.
How, you ask, could the political situation help the governmental one? It's not that difficult.
If you study the financial reports of elected officials and candidates, you quickly discover how philanthropic politicians can be to fellow politicians. Contributions from someone's individual committee or political action committee enriches the election coffers of another office holder or aspirant.
In mid-April, the Center for Responsive Politics released a study stating that in 2009, nine candidates for the Senate or House received more than $200,000 from "candidate committees and leadership PACs," with Republican Senate candidate and current Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri getting $384,453 and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) depositing $294,949 for his re-election effort. Back in 1993, the year before another consequential midterm election, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) was the leading recipient of such contributions at $37,000 -- one-tenth of the current top amount. Is it hopelessly idealistic and electorally romantic to wonder why the Federal Election Commission allows one politician to raise so much money for the sake of another? A check of the FEC's campaign laws spells out in black-and-white that these contributions are permissible.
But what if new, reform-styled regulations restricted the money raised by a federal candidate or a candidate's PAC to that candidate's own use during the specific election cycle? The rule could apply to candidates running for president, the Senate or the House. Any money not spent during the candidate's actual, time-defined campaign would go directly to the federal treasury to pay down the debt.
This modest proposal would help control the amount of money raised and spent on campaigns, diminish the influence one politician exerts over another -- and help reduce what the government owes.
As things stand now, a politician can accept lucrative gifts -- then turn right around and give that money away. Newsweek reports that Mitt Romney has raised $5.8 million through June 30 and spent $324,256 "on competitive GOP races in almost every state," while Sarah Palin has received $3.39 million, with $137,500 going to "Senate and House candidates nationwide."
On the Democratic side, while New York Rep. Charles Rangel fights for his political life amid complaints over alleged money-related violations, candidates on the receiving end of his largess have been assiduously unloading his gifts, with more than $400,000 earmarked for charities, according to a recent tally.
Though he's certainly not alone in this regard, Rangel, former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, acquired some of his power in the House in part because he's been able to spread so much money around to congressional colleagues and candidates over several years.
We often read that relatively few House races -- 50 or so out of 435 this year -- are genuinely competitive. This means that shoe-ins of both parties can become piggy banks in races for allies where money might matter. But does this situation make sense at a time when so many people think political spending is out of control and, in some cases, ethically questionable?
Let's solve the problem by restricting gifts to the candidates themselves and by donating any remaining dollars at the conclusion of a campaign to the government's very scarlet bottom line. Among other advantages, such a scheme would help bridge the gap between campaigning and governing, since the campaign now receives the preponderance of energy and attention.
When Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) announced he wouldn't seek re-election this year, Hoosier Democrats became curious about two matters: What the retiring senator would do in the future, and what would happen to the nearly $13 million war chest he's amassed. These proposed new rules would put an end to the latter concern.
In fact, you never know, but the fiscally minded Bayh might have even been pleased to see the money go to a worthy cause -- the federal debt he's criticized for so many years.