COMensarations
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Is Politics Only to be for the Rich? Part Two
The Cheiftain thinks we pay too much for our legislators already.
Another piece of legislation that would make elective office only available to the rich involves raising the per diem for state legislators who do not live in the Denver Metro area. It is currently $99 per day, and it would be increased by $50. The Pueblo Chieftain’s Editorial Board has come out against the increase, saying it is an end-run around Amendment 41, which prohibits gifts, like meals, from lobbyists.
I don’t know when the Editors of the Chieftain last stayed in downtown Denver, but they need to back up their assertions that $99 a day is more than adequate with hard, current figures on housing, meals, transportation and other expenses in Denver. The last time I had business in Denver, I stayed to the south in an extended stay place that was the cheapest decent place I could find. (There are cheaper places, but the bed springs are coming out of the mattress and the carpet seems to move.) Cost: $83 plus tax. That would leave $16 for other expenses. A round-trip on the Light Rail downtown would run about $6. (It’s either that, or drive and arrive frazzled and grumpy and unable to catch up on reading.) We’ve got $10 left. Lunch out in Denver, even a simple sandwich, chips and beverage, will run $12-15 with tax and tip. If you brownbag it, you will probably buy more expensive ingredients for the sake of convenience than you would if you ate at home, so figure $3.
Is Politics Only to be for the Rich? Part One
We want Everyman to be able to run for office, but we keep supporting efforts to ensure only the rich are able to.
A piece of national legislation has recently been introduced which more than ever will make politics a rich man’s game if it passes. It has free speech implications as well.
Representative Udall (D) of Colorado is sponsoring a bill lin Congress to prohibit members of a candidate’s immediate family from receiving a salary that comes from campaign funds. An example is a spouse who seves as a campaign manager, publicist, etc., for a candidate, and is paid. The perception is that this is just a way for the candidate to skim money into his own pocket. The perception is that an immediate family member does not actually perform any work in return for the money. This may or may not be true. Note, it MAY NOT be true. Should it not, however, be up to the donors to decide whether they are unhappy about a candidate putting a relative on the payroll, and withhold donations accordingly? Isn’t this the subset of free speech called “Put your money where your mouth is?” Which is the same type of free speech restricted by campaign finance laws.