Campaign Financing and Reform

"In all your acts, self interest shall be cast away.
Look and listen for the welfare of the whole people
and have always in view, not only the present,
but also the coming generations,
the unborn of the Future Nation."

Poltical Campaign Financing and Reform
...an indigenous view

Campaign Financing as a Constitutional Issue

One Person, One Vote, One Dollar

Historical Background...

As the United States grows older, forgetting the idealism of its youth. Mainstream America remains successfully ignorant of the debt it owes to the indigenous nations that gave them their government.

Not widely known is the contribution of the Haudenoshaunee Confederacy of Nations located in what is now known as upstate New York. In 1754, Benjamin Franklin attended a meeting of the Confederacy's elected representatives in Albany, NY. Before this conference, no European colonist had witnessed the operation of a representative democracy, let alone one 500 years old. So impressed was Franklin with what he saw, that some 24 years later, he proposed their form of government for that of the new United States.

The idea of popularly elected representatives who took the interests of the people to a central government, one that existed only so long as the individually sovereign people allowed it to function, was a radical idea to these colonists. The fact that it had existed for five hundred years gave it credibility beyond doubt. It also gave the colonists license to dump the doctrine of "the divine right of kings".

In the years following the ratification of the US Constitution, much writing was set forth by its original framers to clarify the meaning of its words. They wanted to ensure that future generations would grasp the essence of what the country's founders had done.

Knowing that immigrants from other parts of the world would bring with them the concept of power deriving from God to the king to the people, the framers wanted it made clear that in the United States, power originates with the Creator to the people to the government ( a uniquely Native American concept ), and that the government only exists at the pleasure of the people. The credo of individual sovereignty was taken from the Haudenoshaunee and firmly embedded into the Constitution of the United States.

The Premise...

And as the constitution was so framed by the subsequent discussions and writings of its original drafters, We propose in like manner to frame this discussion around campaign financing.

One thing of which you can be sure, this will be a very different discussion than the present debate. Perhaps a constituional lawyer will take up this cause. The most likely avenue of pursuit is through the judicial system. We contend it is a constitutional issue, and it may very well determine the future for us all.

The rights and sovereignty of the individual is at the core of our governmental construct. The idea of "one man, one vote" was always a part of the constitution. (We suppose "one person, one vote" is more politically correct). The point is, the principle was there. It was there with the rights of the individual, although it did take a while for the principle to be recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Free speech, individual sovereignty, equal opportunity; these are the fundamental rights upon which our society and Constitution are built. And it's within these rights that our premise is formulated.

The Proposal...

First, for illustrative purposes, let's say every registered voter can spend one dollar in speaking for their one vote. We say registered voters, because by not registering, a voter is exercising his or her free speech by, in effect, saying "I'll sit this one out. I abstain." Which is their individual right. Which presupposes that equal access and opportunity have been guaranteed in the process. Don't forget equal access and opportunity.

Individual voters ( alone or in concert ) decide how their dollar is spent. Proxies are allowed and someone other than the voter can pitch in the dollar. Corporations, since they are persons under the law, get one dollar. If a corporation wants more money, it can get the money by obtaining proxies authorized by each shareholder to transfer their dollar to the corporation for that particular election. Number of shares held is not a factor. It's the person (the voter), not the number of shares ( remember: one person, one vote, one dollar ).

Once the dollar is transferred, the voter does not have that dollar anymore for that election. Unions, associations, etc. work the same way. Dollar proxies expire after each election.

Each candidate, in any given election, can get one dollar per voter. Additionally, each issue, ( i.e. proposition, bond, initiative, etc. ) gets one dollar per voter. The dollar can only be spent for the purpose that it was originally earmarked. Local elections are limited to contributions from qualified voters in its effective jurisdiction. Local, county elections operate the same as well as state, regional and national elections.

Special interests certainly won't like this. Not because they couldn't potentially raise enormous sums of money, but because they might have to explain their position and educate each voter in convincing them to give over their dollar. That's a lot of work. Their disproportionate ( and unconstitutional ) advantage would be lost. The important thing to remember is that this levels the playing field. Keep thinking about equal opportunity and equal access. These are well established constitutional foundation stones.

As an aside... keep in mind the law of unintended consequences, this could potentially encourage voter registration since special interests would want to get the dollar authorization from as many qualified (registered) voters as possible. It might also reengage the disenfranchised voter as they become aware of the new fair and level playing field.

By adhering to the one person, one vote, one dollar principle, constitutional fairness with regard to free speech and equal access has its best chance of surviving. Money will no longer unfairly amplify a special interest's voice. Monitoring and compliance become uncomplicated tasks. Financial records will show that no candidate or campaign can ever collect more money than there are registered voters. Soft money, hard cash, in kind donations; the campaign organizations will have to be in possession of the appropriate proxies and the value of all donations cannot exceed the head count of the qualified, registered voter pool.

We contend that campaign financing, as it now exists, is inherently unconstitutional. This idea strikes at the heart of the current, convoluted debate. The popular debate is a diversion, a kind of shell game, which the existing power structure encourages. Ask yourselves... When a whisper competes with a microphone, is it fair and equal access to free speech? Does pocket change or folding money get you a better table when dining at an exclusive restaurant? Those who decide such things would have you believe these are equal.

Free speech of necessity is inextricably linked with equal access (opportunity) and individual rights. When the business of the people is decided by who can shout the loudest, by who can pay the most, then we have lost our way and we have violated our Constitution.

Please check regularly for updates and additions.
Email comments to: nativeinfo@nativeamerican.net