Paper Six
There is power in numbers. In this sense it can be called political momentum but the more voices heard about an issue the better for the issue. Right or wrong, the better for the issue. To have organized and well funded momentum puts the idea in front of the people who debate legislation to the benefit or detriment of the idea. It is important that different ideas are considered and debated and the information that makes up the idea is easily available to the people deciding to pass or fail the idea.
Consider a town that wants a new bridge. The people in this town have immediate access to their local elected officials in the form of town councils, commissions, mayors and such. These councils can put this request to state and federal elected representatives who can then investigate and act on the request. Interested citizens can also write, call and meet with elected officials to add momentum to the bridge request. They can also support their candidate that supports the issue.
There also happens to be a company in another town and different congressional district that wants the contract to build the bridge. The people in that company can also write, call and meet with their elected officials regarding the benefits to their town in winning the contract adding to the momentum. They are also free to contact the representatives of the town that wants the bridge to help with information and strategies of negotiation.
A local fishing group that opposes the bridge can do the same as the townspeople and builder in writing, calling and meeting to state their case with the freedom to contact other legislators from across the USA to try and build their own momentum based on their arguments against the bridge.
This is all well and good. The exchange of information and ideas with debate and decision. In the case of the needed bridge the idea was declined and the bridge was not built. The people in the town don't get the benefit, the contractors don't get the business and the fishermen from across the U.S. who will never fish in that stream can chalk up a victory.
But wait, there's more.
The fisherman's organization is challenged on the grounds that an organized body that collects dues used their financial organization to influence an issue, away from their own districts, in opposition to Section 1 Paragraph 4 of the 28th Amendment. It was further found that the organization used the proceeds of their dues to hire a person to focus on this issue and organize opposition using funds from the organization for travel and expenses.
This was a violation of s1p4, indirect political influence, and the organization was fined and made to write a letter outlining their actions and send it to all contacts made during the campaign opposing the bridge. Furthermore all the organizations members were required to declare their dues against their $2000 dollar donation maximum, s1p3, and a portion of these dues had to be forwarded to the Central Campaign Finance entity for cost accounting.
The issue was again raise by the townspeople who want the bridge with similar lines drawn by the same organizations; the town that wants the bridge, the builder who wants the business and the fishermen who oppose it. All are free to write, call and meet with legislators. And they do. And again the bridge is not funded. And again the issue is challenged. This time there is found no violation of the 28th amendment. No funds from the group were spent; as the arguments came directly from fishermen across the country to their representatives who found merit with the argument and opposed funding for the bridge.
Regarding the cost of stamps and mass mailings to the different fishermen; these were financed by individual citizens who had to report the cost to the Central Campaign Finance entity and were simply counted as a donation for political purpose consistent with Section 1 Paragraph 3 of the proposed 28th Amendment. The mailings did not directly, indirectly or inappropriately benefit an elected official.
The intent is not to limit organized groups from pursuing an agenda. The intent is to limit unfair influence of candidates and elected officials through various financial incentives away from the candidates constituents making each citizen equal in their financial involvement. An argument was raised about the cost of one stamp in writing to another person about a political issue and the point was made regarding the difference between personal correspondence and broad correspondence. The issue was pushed regarding free email and mass distribution and the decision was left to legislators to create laws addressing this toward the intent of the amendment.
The wording of s1p3-4 is problematic. The intent is to put influence in the hands of concerned citizens away from business entities while not impeding citizen involvement in issues. The compromise here is financial limits per citizen and obligation of elected officials to their constituents as their only form of financial support and hope for election/reelection.
For closure; through debate and negotiations between concerned groups a bridge was eventually built and no one side won it all but all sides gained some.
Note: Considerations in this paper led to the revisions of 9/26/21
Back to Top