Should campaign contrubutions be limited on location?

[PhreeZone 20]

I was reading a story recently that one of my states senators was heading out on a fundraising tour to another state since there are big businesses there that were willing to contribute money to his re-election fund for this fall. To me this sounds like they are listening more to the money then potentially their own constituents. Anyone else think that elected officials should only be able to accept contribuations from people and organizations that are located physically in the area that they represent?

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[justinb138 0]

Quote

To me this sounds like they are listening more to the money then potentially their own constituents.

Welcome to government.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

I was reading a story recently that one of my states senators was heading out on a fundraising tour to another state since there are big businesses there that were willing to contribute money to his re-election fund for this fall. To me this sounds like they are listening more to the money then potentially their own constituents. Anyone else think that elected officials should only be able to accept contribuations from people and organizations that are located physically in the area that they represent?

I have a problem with that. I don't think someone running for a State Political position should be allowed to accept money from out of State.

Of course I didn't hear a huge uproar when Hillary Clinton came in as a non-New Yorker, established residency and then used money obtained nationally to run for Senator.

[wmw999 2,588]

Or when Nelson Rockefeller did the same thing in the 1960's.

That said, the representatives hold more of a local responsibility; to my way of thinking, the senators have more of a combination of national and local responsibility.

But it doesn't necessarily work that way either, does it

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

I was reading a story recently that one of my states senators was heading out on a fundraising tour to another state since there are big businesses there that were willing to contribute money to his re-election fund for this fall. To me this sounds like they are listening more to the money then potentially their own constituents. Anyone else think that elected officials should only be able to accept contribuations from people and organizations that are located physically in the area that they represent?

I have a problem with that. I don't think someone running for a State Political position should be allowed to accept money from out of State.

Of course I didn't hear a huge uproar when Hillary Clinton came in as a non-New Yorker, established residency and then used money obtained nationally to run for Senator.

When the last campaign reform act was being debated, the Republicans were up in arms about how restrictions on contributions were a violation of 1st Amendment rights.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I was reading a story recently that one of my states senators was heading out on a fundraising tour to another state since there are big businesses there that were willing to contribute money to his re-election fund for this fall. To me this sounds like they are listening more to the money then potentially their own constituents. Anyone else think that elected officials should only be able to accept contribuations from people and organizations that are located physically in the area that they represent?

I have a problem with that. I don't think someone running for a State Political position should be allowed to accept money from out of State.

Of course I didn't hear a huge uproar when Hillary Clinton came in as a non-New Yorker, established residency and then used money obtained nationally to run for Senator.

When the last campaign reform act was being debated, the Republicans were up in arms about how restrictions on contributions were a violation of 1st Amendment rights.

Correct, and I disagree with the Republicans position. There is way to much money in politics to the point where it has become a corrupting influence. I'm for full disclosure of all campaign contributions and I'd like to see the rules on lobbying changed.

I have no problem with advocacy groups. I understand the need for special interests to be heard, but the money they use to bribe politicians has gotten way out of hand and needs to be reigned in.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

When the last campaign reform act was being debated, the Republicans were up in arms about how restrictions on contributions were a violation of 1st Amendment rights.

Actually, if I recall correctly, the uproar was about the restriction on placing ads within 'x' days of the election...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706