"...reform which forbids money from outside the district"

By John Ballard

There is more than a fly in the national ointment, there is a swarm of them. When the Supreme Court takes another look at the money equals speech concept, Ralph Lopez at Truthout recommends that campaign contributions have geographical limits along with other considerations.

...Very few people know that on average 80 percent of their Congress members' and senators' campaign funds come from outside the district, and largely from outside the state. They come from industries like defense, telecommunications and financial services. What do they get for these contributions, even in cases when the Congress member votes against those contributors' positions on certain bills?

The 1976 US Supreme Court decision, Buckley v. Valeo, which equated money with "free speech," affirmed your right to buy your own congressman. But it did not explicitly affirm your right to buy mine. Since that decision, the amount of money in politics has skyrocketed and is at all-time highs. Also at record-breaking highs are the pay-offs, like bailouts for the auto and financial services industries.

=0=0=0=

... Gen. Smedley Butler said after World War I, "war is a racket."

How do we change this? We can call for reform which forbids money from outside the district. If money from PACs or individuals is to be equated with "free-speech," then let it be confined to its rightful boundaries. There are now "free speech zones" for anti-war protesters, who welcome some public figures into town. So, the idea of geographically restricting some speech in the public interest is well established.

By halting money from outside districts, connections between business interests and committee members will be by coincidence, not forged as unholy alliances, which may conflict with the interests of real constituents. The influence of the defense industry over key committee members and House and Senate leaders will be diluted. The principle of Buckley v. Valeo, that money equals free speech, remains intact. But congressmen will still answer to constituents, the way they are supposed to. Of course, citizens are always free to work their hearts out for whomever they want.

When two-thirds of the nation's wealth is owned by just ten percent of the population, as is the case in the United States, that ten percent has a lot more money to give than the other 90 percent: therefore, the interest of society in limiting the corrupting influence of money across geographical boundaries is clear. MAPlight.org found that money travels outward from wealthy zip codes to poorer ones.

If congressmen were not meant to represent geographical constituents, the founders wouldn't have drawn district maps...

Another excellent idea with little hope of catching on. He's correct when he realizes that ten percent of the population controls two-thirds of the wealth. What's left out is that many of the other ninety percent who don't control the wealth share the illusion that one day they, too, will have a piece of the rock, even though history shows that most will never own more than a pebble or two.

At this link I discovered MAPlight.org.   (MAP is an acronym for Money And Politicians)

MAPLight.org, a groundbreaking public database, illuminates the connection between campaign donations and legislative votes in unprecedented ways. Elected officials collect large sums of money to run their campaigns, and they often pay back campaign contributors with special access and favorable laws.
This common practice is contrary to the public interest, yet legal. MAPLight.org makes money/vote connections transparent, to help citizens hold their legislators accountable.

The Database
MAPLight.org combines three data sets:
* Bill texts and legislative voting records

* Supporting and opposing interests for each bill

* Campaign contribution data from the Center for Responsive Politics and the National Institute on Money in State Politics

Combining this data makes visible key information that could never before be determined easily. For example:
* Contributions given by interests supporting and opposing each bill

* Average donations given to legislators voting Yes and No on each bill

* Timeline of contributions and votes for each bill, graphically identifying when legislators received large donations before or after their vote.

MAPlight.org provides this interactive database for anyone interested in finding out how money buys legislation. It appears complicated at first, but it's really not very different from clipping coupons. This little YouTube snip provides a glimpse but for detailed instructions the site has a six-minute course in how to use the database.

Sadly, after being available for nearly two years this service appears to be used very little. The video has under two hundred views at this writing. 

Here, for instance, is an unsurprising bit.

Blue Dog Dems Receive More Health Insurance Funds than House Republicans

Blue Dog Dems received more funds from the health insurance industry than House Republicans did, a MAPLight.org analysis showed. The analysis compared the average amounts given to each legislator in the 2008 election cycle, using data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

The health insurance industry gave each Blue Dog Dem, on average, $7,567.
The average for each House Republicans was $6,447.

Here are the top recipients in the House of health insurance industry funds in the �08 election cycle:

*Rep. Jim Gerlach (R, PA-6) � $37, 675
*Rep. Harry Mitchell (D, AZ-5) � $35,200 (Blue Dog)

*Rep. David Camp (R, MI-4) � $34,500

*Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D, ND-0) � $34,250 (Blue Dog)

*Rep. Charles Rangel (D, NY-15) � $30,800

Health insurance industry contributors include AHIP, Blue Cross, Blue Shield, National Association of Health Underwriters, AFLAC, Delta Dental Plans Assn, Cigna, and other health and accident insurance firms.

If anything I'm surprised at how cheaply these guys can be bought.These numbers are chicken feed when compared with the amounts at stake in the legislation. It's like that old joke: We've established that you're a whore...this is a conversation about price.