Salaries for Candidates?

Politics & Elections
1

I don’t think any policy change we could devise would have made an honest man out of George Santos. But it does raise an issue that has concerned me for some time: salaries for candidates.

It seems to me that if we want to be represented by our peers, then we need to allow National Committees to pay a livable salary to candidates while they are running. Otherwise they have to go a year without pay, or else run for, and then neglect, another public office to pay the bills while they have their eyes on Federal Office.

Doesn’t it make more sense to allow campaigns to pay them a set salary (say, $100k) and treat them like an employee? That way expense reports and other requirements could be handled in a much more straightforward manner.

To be clear, they currently can pay an amount not to exceed the lesser of the salary of the expected office, or the earned income for the previous year. So if the candidate’s income last year was only $35k, that’s all the campaign can give them. And if they are still getting that $35k, the campaign can’t give them anything more. But campaigning is a very expensive life, and you can’t do it on that income.

The upshot is that our candidates are either already rich, or seriously and personally beholden to the people who get them through the process. So much of the corruption we hear about stems from candidates just trying to survive financially. Shouldn’t we take steps to make it livable?
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/a-cash-crunch-and-credit-card-spending-spree-prosecutors-detail-george-santos-wild-ride

2

I’ll immediately run for office and if I don’t win I’ll immediately start running for office again. Luckily no one else will think of doing this so I’ll be the only one doing this.

3

AOC talked about a similar gap between being elected to Congress, and being sworn in so she could get her salary and benefits. Yes, if we want our elected officials to have lives life most Americans, we need to address these gaps.

So the rules would have to include limits on money, number of candidates, and where in the election cycle they are. Maybe the salary only kicks in after a primary victory. It’s all possible, but we must consider current election process, and “edge cases”.

4

I don’t see the scam here. The source of funds is not a government subsidy, it’s privately raised money. And when paid to you as salary, I assume it’s taxable income? If so, the proposal would just put you in the same position as anyone not running for office.

5

Now, to be more specific, this would be an issue for the case of a would-be candidate who is a wage/salary worker who cannot afford to go taking time off for campaigning. Not so much for a succesful mid-sized business owner for instance.

The reason for this kind of restriction is as TriPolar alluded to, preventing people from making a living off of being candidates. The notional idea behind it is that yes, campaigning is expensive, but the committee funds are there exactly for that, for the expense of campaigning, not to enhance your personal standard of living. You get to stay living in your cheap apartment and driving your old beater car to drop the kids off at County Public School when not doing actual campaigning, and the committee can provide the campaign van to take you to and from events and the outfit and makeover for the debate appearance. If anything I am more worried in this case about the FEC interpretation that paying the candidate’s medical insurance is considered covering a “personal expense”, when it’s something that would have been part of their compensation in their regular job. That is a bigger deterrent IMO. So if you are a candidate you need to sign up for Obamacare? Way to make a certain side feel awkward :sweat_smile:

6

I still don’t really understand why money donated by private individuals cannot be spent any way they choose, if no tax break or public money is involved. Political donations are not tax deductible.

If money is raised under false pretences, of course that’s a problem. But if a candidate wants to try to raise money on the understanding that funds raised will pay them a salary while campaigning, what’s the problem with that?

7

Campaign financing is a fig leaf over the fact that any money you give to a political candidate is a bribe. So we pretend that giving people money to campaign is somehow different than giving them that money to put in their pockets. It isn’t, there are barely any laws enforcing the difference.

8

But you can’t do your full time job while campaigning. Not if you are going to win. And if your employer pays you to campaign, that could be charged as an illegal contribution. (I don’t think it ever has been, but technically it could be.)

9

Because it becomes a bribe when they use it for personal purposes.

10

Then the DNC or the RNC or whichever National Committee you are running under will say “Sorry son, you don’t represent us and we are not paying you.”

That’s the difference in what I am suggesting. Not allowing people to raise funds and then award themselves a salary.

It would also put some responsibility back on the committees when full-on Nazis and liars claim to be candidates running under their auspices. They could be held responsible for the same kinds of background checks any other employer would do. As it is, they just hide what they know, shrug their shoulders, and say “Well, the voters chose them in the primary . . . what can we do?”

11

What would they do about the party base that heartily endorses me? The parties are corrupt enough and then allowing them to selectively pay their insider friends and ignore others will not make it better.

12

You would have to run as an independent, or they would have to accept open responsibility for supporting you, instead of having the current plausible deniability.

13

Look how well that has worked so far.

The solution to the problem starts with making bribes to elected and appointed officials illegal. That means they can not take a dime from anyone except their government salary and the return on existing investments. And the existing investments must be disclosed and considered a conflict of interest. Once that is done most of the problem will go away but if needed further restrictions on campaign financing can be pursued. Anything that leaves the current system of bribery in place will just make the problem worse.

14

I have always believed this requires forbidding candidates from fundraising. That should be done by the committees. As long as candidates (and indeed elected officials in office) are spending 90% of their time asking for money, our government will never work as it should.

15

What level of offices is the OP proposing? The National Committees, IIRC, fund the Presidency, the House and the Senate, the state governorships, and the state legislatures. They may also get involved in large city elections.

The current situation is that the NCs support incumbents. That’s raised some problems, especially with the Republicans, because Trumpers want to challenge everyone. However, all incumbents like this situation just fine. Your proposal would radically reinvent the NCs over all objections of the leaders of the party.

Numbers are also a problem. Each national election cycle sees 435 House races plus 33 or 34 Senate races. 488 x $100,000 is $48,800,000. How many opposing candidates will be funded? Let’s say an average of nine to make the math easy. That’s $488,000,000. The RNC raised $335,000,000 and the DNC raised $306,000,000. The $488,000,000 would be over and above those figures. (I concede that each party has a Senate Committee and House Committee that also raises large sums of money.) But that money is used for necessities of running a campaign. The candidate salaries would be in addition to that. And imagine the bureaucracy needed to administer this, vet the candidates, issue the checks, eliminate fraud. That could cost more than the salaries.

That’s just for the national elections. State races run on other schedules so the number each year will vary. But I can’t imagine the NCs doling out salaries for Congress and not for Governors, and then for legislators. There are thousands of legislators. All states have at least 49; New Hampshire has 424.

This proposal does not elevate poorer candidates so much as add a huge corrupting layer of money on top on what already exists over the strong objections of every incumbent and every watchdog group and the FEC.

Try reforming capitalism first. Seems more likely to succeed.

16

In my experience (Virginia) State Legislators hold regular jobs while campaigning and serving. Is that not the case in other states?

17

Estimates are that we spent $8.9billion on the 2022 mid-terms alone. If we change the rules, the money will be found.

18

You’re conflating the money spent on campaigning, all the advertising, polling, rallies, fundraising, travel, staff, all the way up to voting day with the trivial amounts that Committees spend. The NCs are minor players compared to PACs. They are also private entities. They require voluntary adherence. Literally all the challengers to incumbents are not part of their remit. Nobody is over them. There are no Republican or Democratic Parties, just conceptual notions attached to their names.

Are you seriously proposing that somehow, despite the First Amendment, PACs will be shut out of the process? That politicians will be barred from spending their own money? That legislators will quit their day jobs, which TruCelt noted and is the norm in I believe every state, so that they are equal to the paid candidates? Can you extend that to third parties as well?

This is more of a utopian dream than a plan. You’re essentially proposing nationalizing private entities to make them part of the government so that their activities are controlled by law. Not a good look.

19

It depends on the state. States with a full-time legislature - Ballotpedia