| mySPIN |
 Shorten the Ballot and Remove the Temptation
by Tom Campbell
March 7, 2007
When is it acceptable for a politician to solicit and accept campaign contributions from someone who is or might do business with the branch of government the officeholder serves? This is the very essence of the question raised following the revelation that the State Treasurer had received contributions from individuals in the financial services industry.
Treasurer Richard Moore states, correctly, that there is nothing illegal about the contributions. Moore’s office is not the only one that follows this practice. The Commissioner of Agriculture gets campaign funds from the agribusiness community, the Commissioner of Insurance receives contributions from insurance companies, judges receive contributions from trial lawyers, county commissioners from contractors, and so it goes. They all claim these contributions do not influence them in their decision-making.
Having once worked for former Treasurer Harlan Boyles I can tell you that we knew who contributed and how much. The financial houses were always amazed that Harlan didn’t “shake them down” as other elected Treasurers frequently did. Boyles always ran low-dollar campaigns. But we knew who contributed and they knew we knew.
If, as the politicians say, there is no pay-to-play influence why do employees who live in states far away feel so compelled to contribute? If there is no influence, reasonable people will agree there is the appearance of attempted influence. Purists say this practice needs to be halted and their solution is to require public funding for elections. That is the wrong solution to the right problem, in our opinion.
One would be hard pressed to find an elective office where there was no chance that influence would be sought or exercised; we would almost have to provide public financing for all elections and that is impractical. Besides, if both candidates receive the same amount of public financing the incumbent will most always win. We cannot totally revamp the election process, but we can modify it.
Many believe our ballot of Constitutionally-mandated statewide elected officers is too long and needs to be reduced. For almost as many years we have opposed this notion, believing that the public has a right to select those who would lead them. But several factors have changed our position.
While most registered voters could name their U.S. Senator, Governor, and perhaps the Lieutenant Governor, surveys conclude that few know the name of the State Auditor, the Labor Commissioner, or even the Ag Commissioner, now that Jim Graham is gone. The decline in the number who actually vote in elections demonstrates that people may pay lip service to their right to vote but don’t act accordingly. We could remove the temptation of undue influence while at the same time shortening the ballot, and we might actually improve the quality of government. The scales have tipped in favor of eliminating many of the statewide officials we elect and it is time to do so.
|
|
