Today is the day! Aug. 28 is the effective date for the new campaign finance law. The law applies to state and local candidates and issues.
As of today, the dollar limitations on contributions are repealed. So grab your checkbook and send unlimited amounts to your favorite politician or ballot measure.
The state began contribution limits in the mid 1990s at the direction of voters, but the experiment with contributions has been proven largely ineffective.
The truth is, anybody who is politically savvy knew how to juggle money between committees. Juggling campaign contributions was the legal way to comply with the limits and still provide lots of money from a very few sources.
An excellent example is the recent primary for attorney general in which a candidate was accused of this kind of shuffling activity. The candidate revealed that his finance methods had been reviewed and condoned by the Missouri Ethics Commission!
The repeal is a logical step in the right direction, primarily because the so called “limits” gave (the naïve) a false sense of security. The public wrongly believed that somebody would be watching those disclosure reports.
But that’s too big a job for the money available. Your city and state can’t afford lots of things, let alone a police department for crafty politicians.
So that’s not the way it works. Predominantly, in these matters, official actions are complaint driven. And, if an interested party isn’t watching, nobody is!
Do you remember the Harry S Truman Courthouse Committee? It was formed by two local attorneys to pass a tax for the courthouse.
They received $48,600 of contributions. The reports showed no expenditures for the money, only that the money was contributed to another committee named Back to Basics.
There’s nothing illegal with that, except the Back to Basics Committee did not show any money coming from the Harry S Truman Courthouse Committee for the reporting period when the contributions were supposedly made.
So, who has the money? The public doesn’t know.
You see, there aren’t enough people watching.
In another instance, there was a fundraising event for a local council candidate. A handful of people showed up, but the report showed the glass fish bowl contained $1,600, far exceeding the $25 dollar limit for an individual’s anonymous contribution.
Nobody was watching. And the candidate went on to win a council seat.
It is also problematic that nobody challenges where the money goes.
Do you remember the Save Our Stadiums Committee formed to pass the county tax for stadium improvements?
Doesn’t it seem questionable that a sizable sum was paid to a title loan company that is owned by a county legislator? And doesn’t it seem a bit odd that a full six months after the election, $5,000 was paid to an individual who later was appointed county auditor? For what?
Who checked into those curiosities? Still think somebody is watching?
And the pattern continues today, in the national contribution reports. I find it unlikely that the telephone receptionist for the county executive would contribute $2,300 to a presidential candidate. But that’s what is being reported.
How many of us have contributed 5 or 10 percent of our annual income to a single candidate? In a single contribution?
There’s more, but I’m sure you get the point. There are not enough people watching. And the phony limits make it difficult to see clearly.
