Money Follows Vision, Vision Doesn't Follow Money

At a recent meeting, a participant in a discussion among members of the board of trustees for a non-profit organization made the following observation:Money follows vision, vision doesn't follow money.

That simple observation grabbed the attention of several board members. Although the statement was made in the context of charitable giving, it also applies to political giving.

Most people give money to candidates and/or political organizations that have a vision of what they want accomplish and are able to articulate that vision. Candidates who have a vision and can give voice to that vision are going to do much better at raising money than those who cannot.

The Bible teaches us that "without a vision, the people perish." Well, in politics, the same is also true. Without a vision, the candidate and/or political organization doesn't raise money.

The vision, by the way, can't simply be "I want a political office, so elect me." Such a message is self-centered and conveys an attitude that the person is only interested in themselves. The vision has to be "other-centered". It has to be rooted in service to others, not service to self.

People have a lot of causes that want donations. Your campaign or organization is just one cause among many. You have to grab their attention with your vision, or else, you cause will perish for a lack of resources.

Respected Republican Judge Throws Out GOP Campaign Finance Law

The Columbus Dispatch is reporting that Franklin County Common Pleas Judge John Bender, a Republican who used to be legal counsel to Bob Taft when he was Ohio's Secretary of State, has struck down the campaign finance law the GOP passed in late 2006. The bill was passed after the Republicans had lost five out of six state-wide offices. The bill was aimed at curtailing unions from engaging in politics by helping to fund political campaigns.

This paragraph from the Dispatch article explains why Judge Bender struck down the law:

After the bill passed the legislature, the House clerk’s office left out 33 pages of the final bill. It was that incomplete version that was attested to by the House speaker and Senate president, and then signed into law by Gov. Bob Taft.

After the mistake was discovered, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner let the House clerk substitute the first 33 pages of House Bill 694, even though it already had been filed with her office. The missing text dealt with union contributions; at the time, Brunner said the fixing of clerical errors was permitted in years past.

The unions sued earlier this year. Common Pleas Court Judge John F. Bender said late yesterday the General Assembly passed one bill, but the governor technically signed a different bill.

The bottom line for Bender: The governor can’t sign a bill not passed by the General Assembly, and lawmakers can’t send the governor a bill that they did not pass.

The fact that a Democratic Secretary of State allowed the Republicans to substitute the first 33 pages of the bill's text with her office, but it was then struck down by a Republican judge actually helps any future judicial review of Judge Bender's actions. What also helps is the reputation of John Bender for being a very fair judges and one who carefully considers his decisions.

This doesn't mean that campaign finance is dead in Ohio. What it does mean, if the ruling stands, is that the Republicans controlling the General Assembly won't be able to pass a one-sided bill. Of course, if they can't pass a one-sided bill, maybe they won't want to pass one at all.

Check Out OhioMoneyTree.org

Want to find out who gets political money from who? Check out www.ohiomoneytree.org. You can check either by contributor names or by candidate/committee names. It is pretty interesting and is very comprehensive.

Why Not Try Lowering the Cost of Campaigns?

The amazing thing about political journalism is the "pack mentality" that seems to affect its practitioners. Almost all political journalists and commentators think "inside the box." There seems to be very little original thinking. This means that both issues discussed by political journalists and solutions proposed are fairly narrow. Take, for example, campaign financing.

Since the Watergate era the focus on the issue of campaign financing has been to regulate the contribution side of the equation. This means passing legislation that restricts the amount of money that can be given to a particular candidate by a particular person or entity. Yet, the cost of campaigns keeps rising, and the amount of money going to candidates keeps going up and up, especially for campaigns for Federal office. Meanwhile, the cost of campaigns going up means that more and more people are discouraged from running for local offices because those races are becoming more and more expensive.

Here's a suggestion: focus on the bringing the cost of campaigns down. How? Here's one idea that could have a significant impact: allow candidates for all offices to mail at the same rate as non-profit organizations. Non-profit organizations can mail for a very reduced rate. Extend that rate to all political candidates. There would obviously be some cost to the USPS, but the benefit to society of driving down the cost of campaigns would be worth it.

Actually, it is our understanding that the law does allow the state organizations of the Republican and Democratic parties to mail at the same rate as non-profit organizations, or at a very similar rate. The above proposal would extend that rate to all candidates running for public office.

There may very well be problems with this proposal that we haven't thought of, and maybe its not such a great idea, but the important thing is to change the focus from controlling contributions to lowering the cost of campaigns. If the cost of campaigns could be significantly brought down, then more people could run for office without risking bankruptcy.