Duncan Hunter was indicted. He allegedly spent money, which free people donated to him willingly, on things some unelected bureacrats said he couldn’t buy with those funds.
My reaction (if he’s guilty) is similar to my response if he was busted for smoking cigarettes on the beach; an eyeroll followed by a yawn. If Hunter broke these arcane laws, he should probably resign after he is re-elected in November. If he didn’t break these antiquated laws, he should lead reform efforts on these Watergate-era campaign rules.
All voters really need to know, in a timely fashion, are two things: who gives the candidate money and where does the candidate spend that donated money. In the 21st century, there is no reason why voters or donors couldn’t see every single donation and/or expense posted on the internet within 48 hours.
If a candidate chooses to spend campaign funds at Lola’s 24-hour strip club, it should be posted on the internet within 48 hours. If a candidate chooses to donate campaign funds to the First Baptist Mission Relief Fund, it should be posted on the internet within 48 hours. Donors can determine whether or not they want their funds to go to strippers or church ladies rather than on signs, flyers, and television advertisements. Transparency is all I want for campaign finance rules.
Similarly, campaign contribution limits are a direct violation of free speech. If Richie Rich, the CEO of Get Rich Off Government Contracts, Inc. is funding said candidates’ spending at strip joints or churches, we should see that within 48 hours too.
Hunter’s campaign finance debacle is a great reason to start this reform effort today rather than tomorrow.