Patches (Bill and Aileen Gram-Reefers’ dog) has written a commentary – Coughing Up Concord’s Smelly Campaign Myths – worth reading over at Halfway to Concord. The dog is quite bright and makes some interesting points. I don’t have any pets so I’ll have to make my points my own.
1. Contributions to campaigns are not legally considered financial contributions to the candidate and do not create a financial conflict of interest. Admittedly the perception is created, but the legal line is pretty clear. Patches is correct that people with business interests in a community tend to be regular contributors. Campaigns cost money and the candidates generally ask for help from everyone – but few respond. I think the real question is how do we encourage the regular folk to participate and make the occasional contribution?
2. I agree that the free speech issue gets confusing – kinda like chasing your tail. But I can’t quite understand Patches thinking that polling a community about their views on issues makes it likely the winning candidates will not have the "consent of the governed" as he puts it. The election itself gives the winner(s) the consent of the governed that bothered to vote. Not always pretty but our system until we change it.
3. Candidates or their advisors who knowingly collaborate on independent expenditures that benefit them are breaking the law. I agree that Patches has a lot of dots to connect in this local race, but it’s been my experience that candidates and consultants take that rule very seriously.
4. See point 1 above.
I think one thing that Patches and I probably agree on is this – regardless of how you view the campaign – it’s important to vote next Tuesday.