Campaign finance changes could help charitable institutions     By Steven Postolka “We often complain about the influence of money in politics. And probably for good reason. In recent years we have had officials in trouble for money–related, white collar crimes. Remember the Jack Abramoff scandal? But money also has a lot of influences in American politics that aren’t illegal. Think of how expensive this latest campaign was. According to Federal Election Commission statistics reported by the Washington Post, Barack Obama raised $116,457,694. John McCain raised $5,341,386. That adds up to a ton of money. Campaign finance reform sought to limit the influence of money in politics. And it probably did. But as we saw in this campaign, candidates aren’t always willing to accept the limitations of public financing (Obama chose not to do so). And even with limits in place, our presidential candidates are still spending enormous amounts of money to run for their desired positions. This could be limited by the institution of a set starting time for campaigning. No one would be able to begin a campaign before a certain date, preferably close to the primary season and/or general election. I would probably support such a measure. But I also have a different proposal. What if future political candidates could couple the messages of their campaigns to missions of public service? The underlying idea here is that the government is here for the betterment of society and the aid of the oppressed. Also, individuals should be inspired to help others and avoid government intervention if possible. Under such a plan, candidates would do two things. First, a portion of their campaign contributions should be donated to charities. Second, the campaigns should host events at places of charity. They would hold rallies, have supporters complete public service projects, and hopefully inspire supporters to come back to that charity again, all while building support for that candidate’s government agenda. The government has instituted public service projects before. AmeriCorps, for example, is good for those (particularly college students) who are looking to devote a lot of their time to service. But this is not a practical application of service for most Americans. Most of us can only afford to donate a small amount of time to volunteering at a local charity, or to donate a small percentage of our paychecks to these organizations. Unfortunately, some Americans are very charitable about donations and others are not. As a conservative, this scares me. If Americans are not willing to give, then the government will likely have to step in and do so. This is unfortunate for a number of reasons. As Barry Goldwater noted in The Conscience of a Conservative, private charities are often more efficient than government programs. And all private contributions are voluntary, as opposed to government programs involving forced contributions from the citizens. This also gives us more choice in which charitable organizations we want to support. There is a risk here that service to the poor will simply be turned into a public relations spectacle for a campaign and nothing more. Such risk would have to be managed, and watchdog groups would have to be vigilant. But if future political candidates can couple their messages of governmental policy with inspiration for Americans (particularly younger Americans) to serve others, America could be better off. (Dec. 5)     Opinion Home