Skip to main content

View Diary: Campaign Committees Can Invest Donations? WTF?!? (43 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What should they do? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    phonegery

    Buy a CD?  Put it in a money market account?  Guess if the economy was functioning well, investing it in a higher return vehicle makes sense - in essence it gives me (assuming I'm a donor) more bang for the buck . . .

    Now should there be rules against the congress critter investing it in his wife's perpetually money lowing company?  Who knows - that definitely seems like conflict of interest - but again, if everything is fully disclosed, the onus is really on me to decide if I want to funnel money to his wife or not.

    Note that the example in the preceding paragraph is not meant to be sexist - feel free to substitute "her" for "his" and "husband" for "wife" (or any combination thereof to cover same sex marriage situations . . . ).

    •  My problem is the risk and the conflict of (8+ / 0-)

      interest. You should not risk money that is donated to you for a specific purpose, e.g. getting elected. Would you be okay with them betting it at the track? If not why is investing it (a risk) different from betting it (a risk)?

      The other issue is that even if you are buying mutual funds there is too great a chance that your campaign funds become tied up with the well being of an industry that you legislate on. The temptation to vote in ways that benefit it gets greater when your own future is tied to it.

      Getting Democrats together and keeping them that way is like herding cats that are high on meth, through L.A., during an earthquake, in the rain -6.25, -6.10

      by Something the Dog Said on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 06:22:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The thing is that Congress People (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        phonegery, Kickemout, divineorder
        who clearly don't need money for re-election are constantly soliciting it.

        For example I knew somebody who was eager to donate to Hillary's 2006 senate campaign - despite the fact that she already had something like $30 million in the bank are for all intents and purposes was running unopposed.   The bottom line is that at least 50% of all races are similarly not competitive - yet the money for the non-competitive campaigns still rolls in.

        Are the donors really so naive as to think that the money is going to fund the election of this or that person?  No, not really - what they're paying for is access and influence.  What ultimately becomes of the money is irrelevant.  

      •  Everything campaigns do are calculated risks (0+ / 0-)

        You should not risk money that is donated to you for a specific purpose, e.g. getting elected. Would you be okay with them betting it at the track? If not why is investing it (a risk) different from betting it (a risk)?

        Investing the money is related to the goal of getting re-elected.  It's a risk, but so is hiring another fundraiser or consultant, buying a TV ad, or opening an additional campaign office.  None of these actions are guaranteed to help the politician get elected, but they're all calculated risks taken to further that goal.

        I have no problem with blind trusts.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site