Candidates always catch grief over the amount of out-of-state campaign contributions they accept. Nobody likes to think our politicians are being bought by people who live outside their districts - people whose interests they aren't supposed to represent.
Predictably, recent reports that contributors from outside of Montana are responsible for more than 90 percent of U.S. Sen. Max Baucus' individual campaign donations have prompted thinly veiled hints that Baucus' interests no longer lie in Montana.
So far, Baucus has raised more money from out-of-state donors than any of his peers in the Senate. With 11 months to go before the 2008 election, Baucus has already raised a whopping $7.4 million - $3.45 million of which came from out-of-state individuals. A mere $353,000 came from Montanans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
But this is nothing new. Baucus's fellow Montana Senator, Jon Tester, received about 66 percent of his individual donations from out-of-staters during his last campaign, and the incumbent Tester defeated in that election, Conrad Burns, took in74 percent of his individual campaign contributions from outside Montana.
The reality is, political candidates have to accept money from as many donors as they can in order to run a winning campaign - but this has got to change.
Our current campaign system is bloated with money. Most races for a seat in the U.S. Senate cost millions of dollars, and seats in the House are just as expensive. Politicians are spending much too much time and effort raising money instead of getting things done for their constituents.
It's a situation that only encourages the public's perception that votes don't guarantee representation. Political action committees and big-money donors fully expect their campaign contributions to buy a foot in their candidate's door, at the very least, while the average voter expects a prerecorded message or a form letter.
Efforts at campaign finance reform so far have focused on limiting the maximum amounts of certain contributions. Unfortunately, it appears these reforms have only led politicians to spend more time and energy finding ways around them.
A more effective approach might involve limiting campaign contributions to a candidate's district or state. Imagine: Montana could be the first state in the nation to require its political candidates to accept money only from the folks they actually represent - the residents of their districts.
This idea isn't likely to catch on with those who spend a lot of money supporting politicians in other states, or with the politicians who gain advantage through their support.
Still, it's an idea worth bringing up the next time someone complains about excessive out-of-state contributions.
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)