Crazy Idea? Make House & Senate Races Local Again

[Rage for Order]

With all the talk of big money having too much influence in politics and election campaigns I had a thought: why not pass a law requiring people to actually reside in the Congressional district or state in question in order to contribute to a campaign for a House or Senate seat? No more national elections; if you don't live in Missouri, you can't contribute to the campaign of someone who wants to represent Missouri in the US Senate. Likewise, if you don't live in the 4th Congressional district of Virginia, you can't contribute to that race either. I think this could go a long way to making candidates responsive to the constituents they purportedly wish to represent, while also making a run for elected office more accessible to more people. Thoughts?

[Ozymanithrax]

1. Money and political donations have been tied to free speach...

Short of a constitutional amendment, I don't see any way of doing that.

Besides, U.S. Congressmen and U.S. Senators make decision that affect every American. Why shouldn't every American have some say in those elections?

[Rage for Order]

2. But would speech be limited?

You would still be able to contribute to your representative's or senator's campaign.

Yes, the decisions made by U.S. Congressmen and U.S. Senators affect all Americans, but all Americans also have the opportunity to elect someone from their own district/state to represent their interests.

[Ozymanithrax]

4. If money is free speech, and you are denied the right to speak with your wallet...

by the Government, then your speech is not longer free. Yes, as free speech is now defined your speech would be limited.

I would prefer to see all elections paid for from taxes, public funding. That would also need an amendment to the Constitution.

[Rage for Order]

6. We already have some limitations on free speech

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a scholar of the First Amendment, and I am pretty close to an absolutist when it comes to free speech. Certainly there are pros and cons to both sides of this debate. It seems that it could be in the public interest, and maybe that would mitigate some of the free speech issues? At this point it's just an idea that I thought would make for an interesting discussion.

[Ozymanithrax]

15. Legal limitations on free speech have to meet certain tests...

You can not shout fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire...

Your speech can be limited by private individuals.

Free speech is limited for national security reasons.

But no government, local, state, or Federal can limit your free speech in an election, and limiting the spending of money in an election does that.

I think publicly funded elections are in the national interest. The disproportionate influence of money on elections is well documented.

[verges]

8. Even though they make decisions..

that affect all of America; their job is to represent their constituencies. Not all of America.

[Chulanowa]

20. Why can't I vote in Ohio elections?

Just because I live in Washington? How unfair is that?

[SocialistLez]

3. I like donating to out of state elections

I would be okay with limiting corporations that are not headquartered in a certain state from making campaign donations but of course I'd like to severely limit campaign contributions from for-profit corporations to political races entirely....

I think people should pay attention to how responsive their representatives are to them and if they aren't responsive, vote their @$$ out. No need to pass term limit laws, laws limiting donations, etc.

We have more power than we think. If you think corporate interests are running your "representatives," vote their @$$ out.
When I wrote Blanche Lincoln a few months back, I told her the company Wal-Mart can't vote for her so it's best to listen to the people of Arkansas than the $$ that comes from Wal-Mart.

[Warpy]

5. That would seriously cramp my style this year

since I've pledged to give to opponents of Blue Dogs in primary races and have started doing so.

Like it or not, the malfeasance of these conservatives in government affects everybody in the country, not just those in their own districts. For that reason, donations should be open to individuals countrywide.

I would, however, like to see business donations restricted to their home districts.

[Rage for Order]

7. That's one side of the argument

However, do people in Northern California understand and empathize with the issues that are important to and affect the residents of the 1st Congressional District of, say, West Virginia? I doubt it. Should those individuals in Northern California have a say in who the candidates are for that race in West Virginia?

[customerserviceguy]

10. As long as who gives the money is open

what's the problem? If I were running a campaign in WV, and my opponent was getting a lot of his/her money from California, I'd use that as an issue against that person.

[verges]

9. But the Blue Dogs

aren't representing you. And that's not their job. You have your own reps. It's the responsibility of the BD's constituents to vote them out. Not yours.

[Warpy]

13. See below

Thank you.

[Xithras]

11. See, that's part of the problem.

People making out-of-area donations often don't "get" the local races. I can give you a very real example: Dennis Cardoza is a Blue Dog who has been identified by some on the left as a person who needs to be booted out of office. I don't disagree that he's conservative or that a more liberal representative would be better, but it's not a district that will be electing one any time in the few decades. Why not? Because it has a very conservative voting base. This is a district where even the DEMOCRATS voted for Bush both times around.

So, here's the rub. Cardoza is extremely vulnerable right now because he voted yes on HCR. Local polling shows that local voters opposed its passage by about a 2-1 margin, so there's a very real chance that he could lose if the election were held today. Donating to his opponent in the primary would only help that to occur. But there is NO WAY that a real liberal could ever win that district. Cardoza, to put it bluntly, is about as liberal as his district is going to get. Bump him, and he'll be replaced with a Republican. A guy like Kucinich, who I love to bits, couldn't win that district even with a billion dollar campaign chest.

Ask yourself which is worse. A Blue Dog, or the Republican who would replace him?

[Warpy]

12. In some cases, it's a wash. Really.

Look at how long Stupak was able to hold health insurance reform hostage to his religious dogma. He was willing to let us all die for the sake of Rome.

Again, I'll contribute to challengers in primary races. I don't expect many of them to win the primary races, I'm realistic enough to know what conservative parts of this country are like. However, just the increased ability of a liberal to raise money is going to get the Blue Dog's attention, and this is why I'm doing it.

Only a light switch mentality would accuse someone of following this strategy as endorsing a Republican.

[LWolf]

14. I'd rather just make all elections 100% publicly, and equally, funded. nt

[Rage for Order]

16. That would be preferable

But it would be much harder to pass.

[cherokeeprogressive]

17. I like the idea.

Not only to candidates, but contributions to things like Prop H8te from places like Utah.

[thelordofhell]

18. How about we just make our Representatives local?

Link the House and Senate to an exclusive internet network and keep the Representatives in the State they belong to. They can virtual conference to pass laws and such. The network would be monitored to make sure no monkey business was going on.

[jgraz]

19. I foresee unintended consequences

Like House races won by whichever candidate was supported by the richest person in the district.