# A serious but unlikely to be accepted proposal \[to reduce time congresspersons spend fundraising\]
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-but-unlikely-to-be-accepted-proposal-to-reduce-time-congresspersons-spend-fundraising/646820
**Category:** Politics & Elections
**Created:** [January 11, 2013, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-but-unlikely-to-be-accepted-proposal-to-reduce-time-congresspersons-spend-fundraising/646820 "2013-01-11T03:10:16Z")
**Posts on this page:** 14
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2013, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-but-unlikely-to-be-accepted-proposal-to-reduce-time-congresspersons-spend-fundraising/646820/1 "2013-01-11T03:10:16Z")
I have an idea.
First, some background:
> **[Congress is awful because members spend all day long talking to rich people](https://www.salon.com/2013/01/09/congress_is_awful_because_members_spend_all_day_long_talking_to_rich_people/)**
>
> Why is Congress so dumb? They spend their days hounding donors rather than researching the bills they vote on
OK, if the problem is that Congressmen spend 5+ hours a day begging, schmoozing, and influence peddling, and then can’t actually do their, y’know, _duty as legislators;_ how’s this for a solution?
I’m gonna start a SuperPAC. I’m going to collect donations from around the country until I have a few million I can spend as I see fit.
Then I’m going to go to my Congressman’s office with this offer. I will cut him a check for, let’s say, $900,000 shortly before the next election, on these two conditions:
1. He goes cold turkey on fundraising from the time of the offer until the time I pay him. He cannot accept nor solicit any donations until, say, June of the next election year. The time he gains can be used being an informed and responsible Congressman who can run again on his record. If he makes it that far, he gets $900,000. If not, he gets nothing. There is no _pro rata_ for partial compliance.
2. He will have working in his office an agent of my PAC, paid by my PAC, whose job is make sure that he complies with condition 1. He will give the PAC’s agent full access to his schedule and integrate this person into his staff. The agent will not make any demands about how he votes, but will report back to my PAC if the Congressman violates condition 1, at which point the $900,000 would be forfeit.
This still gives the Congressman time to fundraise for the next general election, and almost a million extra.
I’m not making any demands about how he votes (and if you know my Congressman, know that I don’t like him or agree with him). I am simply offering him money on the condition that he focus on his constitutional duty until the next election season. He can spend that time actually familiarizing himself with the bills he’s expected to vote on.
Thoughts?
---
### Author:  [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2013, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-but-unlikely-to-be-accepted-proposal-to-reduce-time-congresspersons-spend-fundraising/646820/2 "2013-01-11T03:13:48Z")
Maybe I can’t use the PAC to pay the compliance agent. That’s a problem. Hm.
Oh, and let’s call this person, “the compliance agent.” That seems about right.
---
### Author:  [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2013, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-but-unlikely-to-be-accepted-proposal-to-reduce-time-congresspersons-spend-fundraising/646820/3 "2013-01-11T03:19:32Z")
Problem: You don’t actually have a PAC with millions of dollars to spend.
Frankly, I have tons of ideas which have that same problem.
---
### Author:  [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2013, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-but-unlikely-to-be-accepted-proposal-to-reduce-time-congresspersons-spend-fundraising/646820/4 "2013-01-11T03:36:52Z")
Meh, that’s not the part that worries me.
---
### Author:  [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2013, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-but-unlikely-to-be-accepted-proposal-to-reduce-time-congresspersons-spend-fundraising/646820/5 "2013-01-11T03:54:48Z")
The whole idea would be illegal from the get-go. Super PACs cannot contribute funds to candidates. They can do electioneering for candidates (buy ads, recruit volunteers, anything) but they cannot coordinate their activities in any way with the candidate’s actual campaign.
ETA: coordinate in any way is probably an overstatement. If a candidate gave an interview to a newspaper reporter and said, “I’m going to run my campaign on the issue of puppy adoption!” and then the Super PAC started running ads on puppy adoption, that would be legal. They just can’t coordinate in a face-to-face or private way.
---
### Author:  [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2013, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-but-unlikely-to-be-accepted-proposal-to-reduce-time-congresspersons-spend-fundraising/646820/6 "2013-01-11T04:11:39Z")
Wouldn’t it just be easier to have publicly-financed elections?
---
### Author:  [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2013, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-but-unlikely-to-be-accepted-proposal-to-reduce-time-congresspersons-spend-fundraising/646820/7 "2013-01-11T04:12:00Z")
Second problem…
Isn’t “schmoozing” aka getting feedback from your constituents and explaining your policies actually part of the proper job for a Cenataur?
---
### Author:  [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2013, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-but-unlikely-to-be-accepted-proposal-to-reduce-time-congresspersons-spend-fundraising/646820/8 "2013-01-11T04:19:06Z")
> [@waterj2](#):
>
> Wouldn’t it just be easier to have publicly-financed elections?
How do you decide which candidates get public funds? It takes a relatively minor effort to get on the ballot, so if you start passing out free money to all candidates, you’re going to see an awful lot of candidates. If you don’t fund all candidates, then you’re back to the system we have today.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2013, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-but-unlikely-to-be-accepted-proposal-to-reduce-time-congresspersons-spend-fundraising/646820/9 "2013-01-11T04:32:43Z")
> [@Ravenman](#):
>
> The whole idea would be illegal from the get-go. Super PACs cannot contribute funds to candidates. They can do electioneering for candidates (buy ads, recruit volunteers, anything) but they cannot coordinate their activities in any way with the candidate’s actual campaign.
Thank-you. When I first read the OP I thought: Does he or she even understand the most obvious of laws governing campaign finance?
---
### Author:  [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2013, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-but-unlikely-to-be-accepted-proposal-to-reduce-time-congresspersons-spend-fundraising/646820/10 "2013-01-11T15:21:17Z")
> [@Chronos](#):
>
> Problem: You don’t actually have a PAC with millions of dollars to spend.
>
> Frankly, I have tons of ideas which have that same problem.
Me too…number one on my list, “becoming rich”.
---
### Author:  [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2013, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-but-unlikely-to-be-accepted-proposal-to-reduce-time-congresspersons-spend-fundraising/646820/11 "2013-01-11T15:52:01Z")
> [@Oakminster](#):
>
> How do you decide which candidates get public funds? It takes a relatively minor effort to get on the ballot, so if you start passing out free money to all candidates, you’re going to see an awful lot of candidates. If you don’t fund all candidates, then you’re back to the system we have today.
I can’t see how that’s the case. You just put some threshold amounts in there.
For example (not saying this is ideal, just giving a for-instance):
1. Fully qualifying candidates for Congress get $75,000 for their campaign.
Fully qualifying candidates are those that either win the nomination of a party that got at least 20% of the vote in an election in that Congressional district, that state, or in the nation as a whole, in the past 5 years, or who have themselves won \>20% of the vote in a Congressional or statewide or national election during that time.
1. Non-qualifying candidates are those who didn’t clear 5% by any of those standards in the past 5 years. They get bupkis.
2. Partially qualifying candidates are those who cleared the 5% threshold, but not the 20% threshold, during that time. They get $5,000 for each percentage point they or their party exceeded 5% in their best outing during that time.
See, was that hard?
---
### Author:  [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2013, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-but-unlikely-to-be-accepted-proposal-to-reduce-time-congresspersons-spend-fundraising/646820/12 "2013-01-11T18:48:44Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#):
>
> See, was that hard?
Completely shuts out new parties, and essentially locks in the present two-party structure for practical intents and purposes.
---
### Author:  [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2013, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-but-unlikely-to-be-accepted-proposal-to-reduce-time-congresspersons-spend-fundraising/646820/13 "2013-01-11T21:41:29Z")
OK, I forgot that SuperPAC’s can’t do that.
Hurm. I’m going to start a new thread looking for solutions to this problem.
---
### Author:  [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2013, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-serious-but-unlikely-to-be-accepted-proposal-to-reduce-time-congresspersons-spend-fundraising/646820/14 "2013-01-11T23:00:48Z")
> **[How do we get Congressmen to do their jobs instead of peddling influence all...](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=678650)**
>
> Congress is awful because members spend all day talking to rich people. Five hours a day of schmoozing and begging, every weekday, is a waste of their time, and takes away from doing their duties. A good Congressman would be able to run on his...
And here it is.