A Modest Proposal: Campaign Finance Reform

The regrettable Mr Edwards, whom the Democrats just recently discovered, is something of a slime-weasel, is in the news as he is accused of campaign finance “irregularities.” Additionally, the left is up and arms over the high court’s rejection of restrictions on corporate contributions to campaigns. Additionally, we have a problem with our deficit. I have a solution for all three.

Let’s get rid of all campaign finance restrictions. Campaign contributions will be considered, in my proposal, as a contribution directly to the person who is running. He can use those funds however he might see fit, for vacations in the South Pacific, an extension on his house, or for campaign ads, campaign gewgaws and literature, or other campaign related activities. This will have several benefits.

  1. No silly court related cases like the above.
  2. People will think twice about contributing to people of low character.
  3. Contributions will be taxed as income (likely as aggressively as lottery income), and as a result, will have a positive impact on our deficit far greater than the “tax-the-rich” proposals on the table.

So, there you go. Campaign finance irregularities. Solved. Everybody can go home happy now.


Or not.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


  1. Boonton says:

    Exactly what is the problem your proposal is hoping to solve?

  2. Mark says:

    Your of the aisle side calls for “campaign finance reform”, what problems do they see?

  3. Boonton says:

    Well, the two primary problems most reform proposals propose to address are the influence of money on policy (policy makers will grant preferrential treatment to interests who donate to their campaigns) and the ability of monied interests to buy elections.

    I’m unclear what problem you think you’re solving. It seems to be “I’m bored hearing about campaign finance issues so if the rule is do whatever you want there will never be a case”