New Voter Eligibility/Campaign Finance Legislation

With the endless parade of special interest groups, unions, lobbyists, etc. all lining up to get their snouts as deep as possible into the Federal Government "Feeding Trough", maybe it's time to reconsider who should be eligible to vote and make political contributions  in Federal Elections?  As a proposed solution, the first "Rule of Thumb" I suggest is to disallow anyone who is receiving government aid (other than Social Security) from voting.  The second "Rule of Thumb" is to limit political contribution of any form to individual eligible voters. 

 

The purpose of the first "Rule of Thumb" is obvious.  We now have a system where politicians are scared stiff of doing what is good for the nation because it will take "goodies" away from some people.  The result is that the politicians are more concerned with "beneficiaries" than the people who actually have to work and pay for the "goodies".  This is fundamentally unsound financially and immoral because it is "forced charity".

 

The purpose of the second "Rule of Thumb" is also obvious.  A corporation is owned by thousands of shareholders composed of several political aversions.  A few corporate officers take funds owned by all shareholders and make campaign contributions to candidates many of the shareholders disapprove of.  The same case can be made for labor unions - labor leaders can donate union funds to a political party/candidate while many rank and file members oppose that party/candidate.  Their union dues are supporting parties/candidates they do not.

 

We are at a "tipping point" where it won't be long before the US has more people "riding in the cart" than "pulling the cart".  This is unsustainable financially and will destroy every basic freedom we have as government dependency among the general population increases. 

 

Comments

Thomas Sutrina Added Jul 6, 2017 - 1:48pm
I would add to your list federal employee unions can not support any political or non for profit organization.  The union dues used for these purposes is in effect the contribution of the individual union member so the union member is the actual contributor.  Thus that individual chooses who or even if money is dispensed from their account.  When I worked for Sundstrand Aerospace (part today of United Technology)  is was the approach used for the "pack."
Dino Manalis Added Jul 6, 2017 - 1:49pm
Lobbying should be limited to the exchange of ideas, not money, while fundraising has to be local and not in Washington, D.C.  
Mike Haluska Added Jul 6, 2017 - 2:09pm
Thomas -
 
Excellent suggestion!  The Federal Employees Union is the worst union as far as abusing government expenditures.  The recent VA scandal (you can almost set your watch by VA Scandals) is an example.
Mike Haluska Added Jul 6, 2017 - 4:16pm
Dino - great suggestion!  Take the campaign contribution money out of the decision making process and let ideas stand on their own merits.
S.R. Morris Added Jul 6, 2017 - 4:44pm
How will you define political contribution?  For example, suppose I make a movie that's highly critical of Hillary Clinton, does the making of this movie ban me from voting?  Are all of my financiers also banned from voting?
John G Added Jul 6, 2017 - 7:21pm
You'd have no money if the government didn't spend it into existence. Taxes don't pay for the government. Government spending pays the taxes.
So your premise is fundamentally flawed.
Your ideology is basic fascism.
Bill H. Added Jul 6, 2017 - 11:23pm
 
I believe corporate and special interest lobbying should be outlawed. The government is supposed to be for the people and by the people, not the special interests and corporations.
Paul C. Added Jul 7, 2017 - 7:33am
This is a free country, to the extent there are laws which restrict how we spend our money, you go down a very slippery slope. Me thinks you've been watching too much mainstream media and are now believing that SCOTUS got the Citizen United ruling wrong. It would behoove you to read up on the arguments for why they got it right.
Mike Haluska Added Jul 7, 2017 - 10:46am
SR - as long as it is you as an individual making a direct financial contribution (not Paramount, Universal, etc.) I have no problem.  There is a huge difference between voicing your opinion and contributing money.  Also, people have a choice to pay/watch your Hillary Movie or not.  Giving the proceeds from the movie to a political candidate would not be allowed.
Mike Haluska Added Jul 7, 2017 - 10:53am
Paul -
 
You're correct, people should be free to spend their OWN money however they wish.  Taking union dues or corporate profits and dispersing them as political contributions should be illegal because not all of the shareholders/union members agree politically.  The exception is an non-profit organization that plainly expresses its political and donation preference.  Its supporters know before they donate where their donation funds will be distributed.
Mike Haluska Added Jul 7, 2017 - 11:02am
Bill H - outlawing lobbying won't prevent under the table shenanigans.  I drafted an idea a few months back suggesting a Constitutional Amendment that would require all legislation regarding taxes, tariffs, duties, fees, regulations, etc. be applied equally to everyone including businesses, individuals, unions, politicians, bureaucrats, government employees, etc.
 
The value a politician has to a corrupt individual/corporation is his/her ability to grant special favors (e.g. tariffs on foreign competition).  Take away the politician's ability to grant favors and there is no need to make huge campaign contributions.  No huge campaign contributions, no politicians getting rich while in office.  No getting rich while in office, more true statesmen running for office.  All around better, more honest, less expensive government.  Holding political office will be a an expression of civic duty - not a way to "get rich quick"!
John G Added Jul 7, 2017 - 4:52pm
Hell why not bring back the poll tax?
Christ on a bike.
Maureen Foster Added Jul 7, 2017 - 4:55pm
So you would allow non-profits to pool their resources and influence public policy but not others?  I guess that means the good folks at all those global warming / environmental non-profits hold all the cards.  God help us if your suggestion ever became a reality. 
Bill H. Added Jul 7, 2017 - 5:32pm
 
Right, Maureen!
Let's continue to leave the cards with Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Data!
I'm certain everything they do will be in our best interests, as they would never be greedy and keep all of the controls with themselves, would they??
 
No, sorry! There should be no financial persuasion involved in elections whatsoever. This includes corporations, special interests, non-profits, foreign governments, and religious interests.
Imagine how things might be if the people once again retained control over their government.
Jeff Michka Added Jul 7, 2017 - 6:38pm
Hell why not bring back the poll tax?-I like the one where "colored" potential voters were asked to guess how many beans or something was in a jar to be sure "they were intelligent.  Mikey HaHaHaluska just wants to make sure "those people" can't vote and don't count.  Mikey adores Citizens united, too.  Finally, recognition corporations are people, too.
Jeff Michka Added Jul 7, 2017 - 6:41pm
Citizens United for Mikey H= Mikey H ONE VOTE, Mikey H's corp ONE vote, eh?  Sound like voter fraud like where those millions of people voted in one state, then went to another state just to vote all again...
Jeff Jackson Added Jul 7, 2017 - 10:50pm
Interesting Mike. I like the equal application of taxes without exception. The Citizens United decision was argued well before SCOTUS, but some of the people who wanted the big money donations restrained changed their minds when the explanation of the Supreme Court's decision was fully explained, too long to explain here. I like your suggestion of equal taxes, and that alone would contribute more to our democracy. The other consideration is the education of the voters. There were rules regarding who could vote, but they were aimed at certain races to deny them participation in democracy. As someone stated, legally, corporations are entities in and of themselves. Legally, corporations have to be entities in order for the law to be applied to them. I'm not a fan of big money, as they are looking our for themselves and they influence laws and regulations that benefit themselves, but we made it that way, and if we don't like it we must vote to change it.
The Burghal Hidage Added Jul 8, 2017 - 1:49pm
Mike - Like what you are saying here. 
 
Bill H - I'm with you part of the way. For the people to retain control of government would require an attention span greater than a 30 second political ad. It would require people to gather information and filter the bravo sierra from the facts. Sadly there are too many who simply will not expend this kind of effort. These people would do the country a great service if they just stayed home on election day.
 
A final point, for anyone really. I do not offer this as an endorsement for Trump, but to some extent there was some of the people taking back control of government in the past election.  Look at the phenomenal sums of money spent by the democrat party and democrat candidates. And the hours of favourable air time devoted to Hillary and devoted against Trump. In spite of all that money the people chose the maverick. I am a libertarian so I dont cast my lot with dems or GOP. There are republicans I would not piss on if they were on fire, John McCain being one of those. There are other republicans that I can find much common cause with, like Rand Paul. As far as the democrat field I have no use for any of them.
 
I'm like a lot of other people where it comes to Trump: I find myself wanting to cringe almost every time he opens his mouth. He is not polished in a political sense. But he is not all wrong either. Since those with all of the political polish have done such a marvelous job running things it is little wonder that the anti-establishment candidate wins
Bill H. Added Jul 8, 2017 - 3:19pm
TBH - I believe people for the most part have fallen under corporate control, as it is with the current climate. Trump and all of the corporations who supported his election were part of BSing the voter base by feeding them exactly what they wanted to hear. Of course, this was also done by the Democrats and their corporate/organizational supporters.
People for the most part did not do their homework, but essentially allowed the broadcast media and social media/search engines to only serve them more of exactly what they craved. Those on the Right were programmed to be further Right, and those on the Left were programmed to be further Left.
The art of researching and reasoning has been lost to consuming only what is served on a digital plate.
wsucram15 Added Jul 8, 2017 - 7:07pm
Mike
ok, if I understand you, its ok for anyone including corporations to donate.  Except unions people who make movies, etc. You know, people who not always but for the most part vote democrat.  If you remove those, you must remove contributions for all things that are not one person, no LLCs, S Corps, Corporation, organizations and their lobbyist donations over what a regular person can donate.  If multiple donations from individuals from same company are submitted, it should be capped per person to not max the original cap.  All should have to report donations.
 
Just saying.
Bill H. Added Jul 9, 2017 - 12:45pm
 
Also, Mike-
Do you actually support the present effort of the administration in gathering everyone's private voter data?
Just curious.
Mike Haluska Added Jul 10, 2017 - 11:15am
Bill H - the information the Trump is requesting is NOT private data - both political parties routinely access the data.  What bothers the Democrats is the fact that the data can be used to check for things the Democrats deny are going on.  Things like 5 million illegal aliens in this country with Drivers Licenses (check it if you want - it's a fact) living in states where all you need to vote is - you guessed it - a Drivers License!
 
Which exposes again the blatant hypocrisy of the Democrats.  On one hand they oppose Photo ID for US Citizens to vote in elections (even though you need photo ID to get welfare benefits, social security, etc.).  On the other hand they demand that illegal aliens (btw - stop calling them "undocumented workers" - tired of liberal euphemisms) get a Drivers License that has Photo ID.
 
There is no evidence presented of a "Trump-Russia" collusion but the Democrats insist on endless investigations.  When Voter Fraud is investigated, the Democrats use the same reason to oppose it.
Mike Haluska Added Jul 10, 2017 - 11:21am
wsucram - your question:
 
"ok, if I understand you, its ok for anyone including corporations to donate.  Except unions people who make movies, etc. You know, people who not always but for the most part vote democrat."
 
I never said I approve of corporations making political contributions.  This is because not all of the people who own the corporation (shareholders) will approve.  The same is true of Labor Unions - the union officers make donations from union dues, but many of the rank and file members would oppose the candidate their money is going to.
 
Whether the group is notoriously conservative leaning (Big Business) or liberal leaning (Unions), they should NOT be eligible to make political contributions.
 
I hope that clarifies it. 
Mike Haluska Added Jul 10, 2017 - 11:33am
Maureen - regarding your post:
 
"So you would allow non-profits to pool their resources and influence public policy but not others?  I guess that means the good folks at all those global warming / environmental non-profits hold all the cards.  God help us if your suggestion ever became a reality."
 
First of all, thank you for commenting.  The reason I would allow non-profits to make donations is because they are dependent of individual donations.  For example, the donors to the National Rifle Association are under no obligation to contribute and they know before they donate the position the organization has on political topics.  I doubt that people who support "Gun Control" donate any money to the NRA.  The same holds for an organization like Planned Parenthood.  I doubt that people who support "Right to Life" donate any money to Planned Parenthood.  
 
My main issues with voter eligibility are:
 
1) people who receive government assistance will continually vote for candidates who pander to them - the result is an ever growing Welfare State.
2) large groups composed of individuals of all political persuasions use the money of those individuals to fund the campaigns of candidates they would oppose individually.
Mike Haluska Added Jul 10, 2017 - 11:38am
MJ - my response to your question:
 
"Would it be mean to suggest voters must reach a certain education standard before they are allowed to vote?"
 
We sort of indirectly do that with the minimum age of 18 (which I think is too young).  But it is obvious to me that the average American is painfully ignorant of how our government is supposed to work and the role the Constitution plays.  Civics was removed as a requirement for high schools in most states and it shows.
Bill H. Added Jul 10, 2017 - 12:37pm
 
Mike - collection of voter data by the federal government is a direct violation of the Federal Privacy Act of 1974.
This data would be composed of voters' political affiliation, Social Security numbers, criminal history and military status, along with other sensitive information, and would most likely be used for dirty deeds such as voter suppression, manipulation of voting districts, and other things that certainly bring us into the realm of dictatorship.
You obviously would love to see the voting advantage swing to your party. Being one who is not loyal to either party, I also see this as being a way to suppress the formation of a third party, which I believe is long overdue.
You are willing to give up your rights and freedoms as long as it is advantageous to Republicans.
Bill H. Added Jul 10, 2017 - 4:55pm
And isn't this timely-
the House Appropriations Committee entirely defunded the bipartisan Elections Assistance Commission on June 30th. It is/was the only agency that safeguards our elections systems, yet it was quietly shut down without having checked a single voting machine for irregularities or for malware left behind (not even in the 21--or 39?--states where tampering has been identified). There is no other US agency that does such investigations.
https://www.eac.gov/
I believe it was Donald Trump who raised all of the fuss concerning "voter fraud" and "rigged elections".
 
wsucram15 Added Jul 10, 2017 - 7:52pm
Hooray Bill H... I wrote about this in February when the bill came up and got NO press.   ITs gone, I checked the other day.  We fought and fought this, but they have everyone SO focused on all this other crap that the things they are passing are VERY detrimental.
PEOPLE will never learn...not ever.
Opes Added Jul 10, 2017 - 10:19pm
Restraining political contributions is good in theory, but in practice people seem to always find ways to game the rules.  The biggest folly is when our tax money is used towards funding the various political campaigns.
Bill H. Added Jul 11, 2017 - 1:09am
Exactly, Opes-
I see this being done at the local city level constantly with developers dumping tons of money into city council elections by utilizing various PACs to insure their candidates get elected and more property gets rezoned to build high-density rat cages. It also insures that their candidates of choice get the most advertising, publicity, and many more large colorful campaign signs to plaster all over town (even on public property).
It's a problem virtually at every level and it needs to be halted.
wsucram15 Added Jul 11, 2017 - 6:14am
Mike:
If you are against donations to political candidates on both sides over a certain amount, no matter who they come from AND you can understand what happened in Congress recently with the elections Assistance commission in congress and why its important, we might have an accord, or at least some talking points.
Check it out please..target="_blank">https://www.eac.gov/  it is a government website
Opes Added Jul 11, 2017 - 9:51am
Bill H., Agreed that the influence of money that comes as hard currency and is gained as soft currency has invaded local, regional, and national elections.  That is why in some ways we should just throw up our hands to say let it be a free-for-all system.  Let the money flow without restrictions.  The only exception should be that government tax money should never pay for a candidates election campaign.
 
Some of the soft money influences are media exposure and the PACs.  What really is hidden as a major silent soft support worth millions of dollars is when media outlets reject advertising of various particular campaigns.
 
When major TV outlets reject advertising from campaigns they don't like that is another version of soft money by way of omission.  Shutting down the dissemination of information from campaigns is also a strong influence worth millions of dollars.
Mike Haluska Added Jul 11, 2017 - 12:01pm
wsucram -
 
No matter how many "limits" you put on campaign contributions, there is still NOTHING you can do to stop flat-out under the table bribery.  As I stated in many previous articles and posts but very few seem to be able to comprehend, the only way to get the corruption under control is to take away the power of granting "special exemptions" from Congressmen.
 
If a amendment was passed stating that:
"No law, regulation, tariff, tax, duty, executive order, etc. could be passed UNLESS IT WAS APPLICABLE EQUALLY TO EVERYONE - that includes government employees, politicians, corporations, individuals, unions, etc.  
there would be no need for campaign contribution limits because donating money to a congressman in hopes of him/her granting you or your corporation an exemption from some legislation, regulation, tariff, etc. would be futile.
 
For example, suppose I was a domestic steel producer and I want protection from cheap Chinese steel imports.  Under current law I can call my Congressman and express my desire for a steel tariff - and by the way - send a check for a sizeable amount to his/her campaign chairman.  If the only way a tariff could be passed is if applied to ALL INDUSTRIES (not just steel) then every other business who would not benefit from a tariff (e.g every company SELLING goods to China) would oppose it.
 
As long as Congressmen can grant favors, dirty money will find its way into their pockets.
Mike Haluska Added Jul 11, 2017 - 12:16pm
Bill H - your theory:
 
"This data would be composed of voters' political affiliation, Social Security numbers, criminal history and military status, along with other sensitive information, and would most likely be used for dirty deeds such as voter suppression, manipulation of voting districts, and other things that certainly bring us into the realm of dictatorship."
 
is full of holes you can drive a Patton tank through.  First of all, the federal government already has access to this information, so does BOTH political parties and it is sold to private businesses.  Second, the "dirty deeds" you talk about already go on and always have been.  
 
What Democrats fear is what everybody who lives in a Big City or Big Democratic state already knows - voter fraud is massive among Welfare State dependents and illegal aliens.  What the data collection will show is:
 
1)  How many illegal aliens voted in states where all you need to vote is to present a Drivers License (28 states).
2)  How many Big City votes were cast by deceased, ineligible or duplicate voters
 
The results will be over 5 million illegal votes cast in 2016 for Democratic candidates.  During Jill Stein's stupid "voter recount" in Michigan, Wayne County (includes Detroit) had over 100,000 votes cast than the number of eligible voters before they stopped the "recount" to prevent further embarrassment.  Chicago isn't the only Democratically controlled big city whose motto is "Vote Early and Vote Often"!!! 
The Burghal Hidage Added Jul 12, 2017 - 10:42am
Like sheep we meekly accept the legal requirement for presenting proper identification for a host of things that apply to everyone equally. The only possible motive for opposing voter ID laws is to permit fraud to be committed.
 
I am surprised that "minorities" are able to embrace the notion that voter ID laws would disenfranchise them disproportionately. What is implied in this argument is that the minority voter is somehow not able or capable of obtaining the proper identification. I can only conclude from this that their objections are less about race and more about political sentiment.
Mike Haluska Added Jul 12, 2017 - 2:14pm
Burghal -
 
THANK YOU - a breath of fresh air and common sense is still out there!  Of course you'll here from Bill H how Photo ID discriminates against the MILLIONS of old ladies born before 1834 that are sensitive to flash photography and their religious beliefs prohibit them being photographed
Bill H. Added Jul 13, 2017 - 12:13am
 
I have no issues with photo ID.
I have no issues with proof of citizenship.
But I will let you flow with you and Trumps dream of millions of illegal voters.
As long as it keeps you happy, Mike!
Opes Added Jul 13, 2017 - 7:41am
There needs to be a new catch word or phrase for people who constantly deny that there has been voter fraud.  Voter Fraud Deniers (VFD) or Voter Cheat Deniers (VCD), do not seem catchy enough.  But the affliction is very catchy :-)
 
There seems to be very little press reporting on the various people that go to jail caught doing voter fraud such as Absentee Voter cases that have been proven to have been cheated upon in various local elections.
 
Beating a dead-horse is to repeat the fact that too many voter registration list have too many dead people listed who have been dead for many years.  Why is there so much resistance to clean that up?
Mike Haluska Added Jul 13, 2017 - 11:52am
Bill H -
 
Thanks for the confidence!  Every time I have predicted an event (Trump winning Republican nomination, Trump beating Hillary, Cubs winning World Series, etc.) on this website I have been proven correct.  We'll just watch and see how many illegal votes were cast, the odds are in my favor of being correct.
Mike Haluska Added Jul 13, 2017 - 11:54am
Opes -
 
Great post - we both know why the Democrats do NOT want the voter rolls cleaned up regularly and detest Photo ID.
John G Added Jul 13, 2017 - 10:53pm
Voter fraud is extremely rare in the USA. Election fraud is rife.
 
The Burghal Hidage Added Jul 14, 2017 - 6:10pm
Mike -
 
Youve been on here a while. Is John G an actual human being or a troll-bot program. Just curious....if you happen to know.
Thomas Sutrina Added Jul 15, 2017 - 2:44pm
Burghal H. one can never be sure but I do think John G. is human and an adult.  That still leaves a lot of room of variations.
The Burghal Hidage Added Jul 15, 2017 - 5:20pm
Indeed.....
john guzlowski Added Aug 2, 2017 - 5:12pm
We can avoid all this corruption by simply having lotteries instead of elections.  No special interest groups effecting the voting.
 
America is based on the notion that we are all equal.  If that's true than let you be a senator.  Or me.  Or Dannl Yoder.
 
The good job Trump is doing clearly indicates that you don't need to know shit from shinola to be in government.

Recent Articles by Writers Mike Haluska follows.