I frequently receive e-mail solicitations for donations to the national party committees to support candidates in challenging districts. And I also receive requests for money to support individual out-of-state candidates. Then there are the requests for support of New Hampshire candidates for the United States Senate and House of Representatives.
It has led me to question how out-of-state money may influence the election of New Hampshire candidates, as well as how other states are impacted by out-of-state contributions.
Sarah Bryner reports for Open Secrets, “Generally, the percent of money from in-state donors – those who likely have the ability to vote for the candidate to whom they’re donating – has fallen since the beginning of the millennium. It dipped below 50% from in-state donors for Senate candidates in 2014 and has not rebounded.” Federal candidates are increasingly reliant on out-of-state contributions. Bryner continues, “Of the candidates who raise the most money from out-of-state donors – typically more than 90% of their total raised – most come from smaller states.”
It seems federal candidates are increasingly dependent upon out-of-state contributions, Open Secrets analysis found. If the sum total of financial contributions is correlated with the success of a candidate’s election, then it would follow, for example, that the election of New Hampshire U.S. Senate and House of Representatives may be based upon out-of-state interference in New Hampshire elections. Out-of-state contributions skew the election results in favor of a candidate’s popularity outside of the state borders.
It seems that under the current campaign structure, wealth overpowers the ballet box. If elections are to be free and fair, then money from out-of-state needs to be removed from the equation. We need federal and state legislators to rule to eliminate all out-of-state funding to candidates for political office. The argument that financial contributions are a form of free speech needs to be revisited. Contributions to candidates from people and organizations coming from outside of the candidates’ state can be interpreted as being the actions of unqualified voters participating in the election process. It is not free speech.
Another issue concerns the financial contributions to candidates running within the donors’ districts. The money needed to run a campaign for political office has reached record amounts. Only the wealthiest and those able to connect with wealthy people and organizations have the wherewithal to run for U.S. Senate or House of Representatives. Money can make the difference between losing and winning an election. Also, campaigning with a single wealthy donor’s money may influence the votes of many people. This jeopardizes the democratic concept of one person, one vote.
Elected officials should be chosen not by the influence of money, but on their merit, their knowledge, their reasoning skills, their ethical standards, their humility and their commitment to upholding the democratic process. According to the Brennan Center, Congress should give federal candidates a way to run competitive campaigns without depending on large donors. That way is through public financing. If there is to be any private contributions they should come from the district that the candidate would represent and be used to inform the electorate of that district.
Also, any public financing should be spent to facilitate accurate information about the candidates. Public funding, in equal amounts to all candidates, would eliminate the
possibility of bribes and conflicts of interest. The conduct of the candidates could be monitored by a government ethics agency. The Brennan Center suggests, “A single agency should enforce core federal ethics standards, including laws concerning conflicts of interest, gift limits, asset and income disclosure requirements for federal officials, and curbs on the use of federal resources for partisan political activities.”
The political national committees should refrain from choosing or sponsoring candidates. They should, instead, focus upon training local party leaders, organizers and grassroots volunteers on the best practices to run effective campaigns. Congress should enact legislation to take private contributions to candidates out of the election process.
Let the electing of candidates be done, not by who accumulates the most money, but by the count of the ballots.
John Buttrick writes from his Vermont Folk Rocker in his Concord home, Minds Crossing. He can be reached at johndbuttrick@gmail.com.