« In Roanoke - Remembering Edwards in Raleigh | Main | Greetings from Bruce Roemmelt »

August 22, 2004

Through an Elector's Eyes - Oh-Oh, Say, Can You See

Fifth in a series by Ron Telsch

I've been examining the Federal Election campaign finance laws. Not exactly reading for pleasure, but any knowledge that may keep friends of mine out of jail is good knowledge I think. The nice thing is most folks do not intend to violate the regulations purposefully. Almost all finance law infractions are unintentional, accidental, or born from a desire to interpret the law a particular way, albeit a way favorable to their intentions. Unfortunately, as with all things involving lawyers, there are more interpretations than there are words in the United States Code.

There is an old axiom that states there are three kinds of lies: (1) lies, (2) damned lies, and (3) statistics. And that certainly can apply to campaign finance activity. Fortunately, I have never been in a conversation with anyone that hinted at telling untruths or finding ways of covering tracks or tricks financially. People just don't bring that up around me. Not necessarily because they know I'm a licensed insurance agent and registered representative, but because they know I've been in law enforcement for three decades. So the other night I was very pleased to attend a training meeting on interpreting the regulations and, true to form, nothing was spoken about except how to comply with the letter and spirit of the law.

There is an equally valid adage that states there are three kinds of truths: (1) the truth, (2) the whole truth, and (3) nothing but the truth, and they are three separate and unequal versions of the same facts. Hereto, I have never been involved in a conversation designed to shade the truth, paint the truth in a particular way, or otherwise speak falsehoods. People just don't bring that up around me. Not necessary because they know I have been in law enforcement, but because they know I do not lie and that is the truth.

The whole issue of campaign finance is off-putting to me though. On the one hand, you have a right to freely assemble, and I assume that means to assemble or co-mingle your finances with whomever you please. On the other hand, money seems to be the root of a lot of evil. I imagine some larcenous-minded person might find a way to purchase a vote for a particular bill by guaranteeing to underwrite the cost of campaign bumper stickers. But it would require two persons to do so. Thereby you have a contract to buy and sell an imaginary vote that may never come to the floor of any body politic. However, others might perceive it as a conspiracy to commit fraudulent democracy. Of course, if we had three hands, one might finally realize people have an interest in the outcome of elections and wish to exercise their right to express their First Amendment opinion. You can vote with your feet, but not with more than a few thousand of your hard-earned dollars, even if they were designed for all debts public and private.

"Why do you even think about these things?", you might ask. Because I like to believe both parties are engaged in making honest attempts to comply with the law. I prefer to be surprised when someone commits a felony rather than walking around with that expectation. Personally, I like to stay far away from the financial dealings of most organizations. Most often the funds are too insignificant and I have no idea why people are arguing over $100 donations to causes which are generally good things. Conversely, the risks can be too high, or I don't understand them fully. I won't commit to any piece of business until I can understand it, can speak about it knowledgably, and I have had an opportunity to sleep on it (whatever that may mean operationally at the time). Either way I find no pleasure in public financial controversy.

Currently, both candidates are expressing ways of using public money and all too many people feel compelled to argue about what they are actually saying, intending, and proposing. I try to take folks at honest, full-face value like U. S. Savings I-Bonds. One candidate wants to cut taxes, the other wants to reverse tax cuts on specific segments of the taxpaying population. I see no conflict there. I merely have to decide which method will produce the greater good for the most people, consistent with fair justice and representation for all. I also have to allow for the fact that hundreds of other people will be involved in the final outcome - they are called Members of Congress. Also, I sure hope elected representatives mature with age and experience and do change their minds on critical topics as they learn how the world really works. It's not flip-flopping, it's called wisdom. Basically, I need to determine a direction more than a specific destination. Lots will change between now and then, and I have hope that maybe a third, even better, way will be found in the nick of time.

Honestly now, taxes are a reality essential to our free governmental structure. We need them. They are not evil, nor are the applications of various tax schemes evil. It's all just a way of adjusting resources to produce necessary and desirable services for our collective citizenry. The things the Constitution guarantees to us cost money to provide. Ask the richest person on the planet. Seriously, if you were the wealthiest individual on the face of the earth, could you pay for the United States Marine Corps? Could you purchase Medicare benefits for tens of millions of persons? And that takes me back to campaign finance. We have two parties because it is the simplest form of debate. We need to discuss, confer, and wrangle with the concerns of our day, just as our forefathers did in days before us. And don't we want our children to develop those skills too: to analyze, express, refine, compromise, deliberate, cooperate, and otherwise come to agreement with the people they live among to produce a community where everyone can live peaceably and seek their own and common interests? Some of the debates are just not as important as other ones, and it is the priority direction we are essentially concerned about.

One simple proposal on campaign finance reform came to me from a Sixth District member recently: we should have more debates. Twenty-five, fifty, some substantial figure that will create news and give the populace an opportunity to hear from the candidates directly. No surrogates meeting the press. No heated arguments over what each campaign might have said or wishes to say. No advertised endorsements produced by special interest groups. Let us get our news straight from the candidates in open public forums. Let's flood the public with genuine debate.

Now while you're thinking about how to credit in-kind contributions to your Federal account, how to pay for volunteer staff, and how to determine the fair market value of that used computer equipment you used to type mass mailings to 499 persons or less, give some thought on how to fix this bizarre system we have created. You know the one that governs our conduct while we attempt to elect others to govern our conduct. For me the direction is quite clear. That's why I am your Elector for the Sixth Congressional District. I want a President who is able to view all perspectives of an issue before we take action. It has something to do with the greater good.

Ron Telsch

Posted by marlana at August 22, 2004 06:07 PM

Comments

You're so right, Ron. As we learn things, I hope we change our minds. It's not called "flip-flopping", it's called "intelligence".

Posted by: marlana at August 22, 2004 06:33 PM