RE: Campaign contributions

[Ellen Russak <erussak@aol.com>]

The question: Do campaign contribution limits infringe on an individual's freedom to support the candidate of their choice or is it a small price to pay in order to restore political equity? 

The Minnesota option of tax dollars reimbursing an individual up to $50 for a contribution made to a candidate seems to do both - allows an individual to support the candidate of their choice (no limit, of course, on non-monetary support like working for a candidate - even "fundraising" by convincing others to contribute their $50 as well).  It also levels the playing field for those willing to work hard to be elected. 

The question: What factors would you consider if you were charged with developing a policy that would balance individual freedom with political equity?

1. keeping caps high enough so that a reasonable race could be run and low enough to prevent the buying of influence. 

2. making the money available to any candidate willing to work hard to get it (viable candidates).

3. a limited amount of free air time for candidates on an equal basis (perhaps 10 to 15 minutes) and then more time at reduced rates. This would allow all candidates some air time regardless of viability but would give viable candidates more time since they would have worked hard to raise the needed money for the time.  

I see no point in penalizing the TV people by forcing them to give away huge amounts of very expensive air time to non-viable candidates - these candidates can still utilize letters to the editor and most public access TV stations will give equal time to any candidate. And there are always the debate web sites that are available free to candidates.

I'm a big supporter of the two party system as long as there is a place for other parties to make their bid as well.  I've seen what happens to countries that have many strong parties and it makes our system look like the epitome of efficiency.  I like  the Minnesota system (if I understand it correctly) because it would level the field during the primaries when most candidates give up because they can't out-fundraise the incumbants. After the primaries it would reward viable candidates (often the major party picks) but still make it possible for a third party candidate that worked hard and really had something on the ball to have a chance.

Ellen Russak