Valley News -

By Harold Pease Ph D
Special to Anza Valley Outlook 

How to stop the rich from purchasing representatives


Last updated 4/19/2019 at 11:27pm

For some time I have been writing about the influence of the moneyed elite, notably George Soros and Tom Steyers, in choosing the elected officers from the White House, with the “billionaire club,” down to local races. It happens when money flows in from the outside where the candidate will serve, allowing those of wealth to replace constituent influence and effectively purchasing representatives from outside the district. If constituents have lost their power to decide their leaders, how can the people pretend any longer that they have a democratic republic?

On the congressional level, those holding “safe seats,” as for example Democrat Nancy Pelosi and Republican Kevin McCarthy, can either buildup gigantic arsenals to “nuke” a threatening contender, or worse, handoff their unneeded donations to a like-minded candidate in another state to favorably impact elections that are often adverse to the will of its citizens. These outside influences have to stop.

More funding allows more signs and literature to be distributed, and more newspaper, radio and television ads to destroy an opponent or get a message out resulting in a higher probability of winning. Candidates with the most money and publicity usually win, and the rich, by their funding, select contenders long before the people vote, dominating the results. In many cases, more money originates from outside a voting district than from within. If no candidate could receive money or influence from outside their district, it would stop much influence peddling.

LibertyUnderFire is the lead advocate for ending outside influences in the nation’s elections and thus offers the following new amendment to the Constitution:

“All election funding, outside candidate’s personal wealth, (individuals or organizations), in all elections shall originate from eligible voters in the district served by the election and donated since the last election for the same office.”

Propositions are a part of most elections and can be considered without attachment to a candidate. This amendment would not stop the funding or creation of ads for or against a candidate or ballot issues, so long as all monies used in such originates from voters within the district served by the candidate. The word “original” is designed to stop donation transfers from sources outside the district to sources inside the district trying to circumvent the amendment.

Under this amendment, the 1996 Bill Clinton campaign could not have received money from China to influence the election nor from any individual not eligible to vote for president nor could Clinton Foundation monies be used to influence elections as much of that money comes from international contributors. Some people still remember the Bill Clinton Chinese Fundraising Scandal involving DNC finance chairman John Huang and Chinese nationalist Johnny Chung. The DNC was forced to return more than $2.8 million in illegal or improper donations from foreign nationals, largely from China, to gain favor in the Clinton administration.

Neither could the Koch brothers, Charles and David, who fund many Republican Party candidates on the right side of the political spectrum, and George Soros or Tom Steyer, who fund Democratic Party candidates and issues on the left, influence any contest to which they cannot personally vote. The amendment would limit the billionaire class to the “purchase” of only their congressman or senator and not a large group of them.

Both Soros and Steyer bankrolled far left candidate Andrew Gillum’s Florida campaign for governor, hoping to flip the state from red to blue and anticipating that the resulting electoral count increase could sway the nation for decades. According to Ingraham Angle, Aug. 29, 2018, Gillum “courted Soros’ organizations and spoke at a number of their gatherings.” When they met at San Francisco, “he promised to back Gillum’s gubernatorial run.” Steyer “funneled about $800,000 into the Get Out the Vote initiative prior to the Gillum run.”

The activity was targeted to get Gillum elected, hence would be denied Steyer with the new amendment, as with most of the $30 million he spent on the midterm elections. Steyer is a resident of California, not Florida.

Congressmen from “safe” districts could not “hand off” their unneeded donations to like-minded candidates in other districts. Nor could they holdover funding from previous victories to “nuke” a future opponent. Contributions are a form of voting normally intended for one candidate only and for one election only, and they could only be accumulated since the last election for that office. Laws presently limit the amount of individual contributions, but the “rich” find loopholes in donating, as in the case of Gillum.

The “rich” have been involved in influencing elections at least since the 1896 “giants of the Industrial Revolution” buyout of William McKinley for president when they used their money to bury opponent William Jennings Bryan. This amendment would not have stopped that as all citizens elect the president – only a rigorous enforcement of present law restricting individual contributions could do that – but today it would stop international campaign funding as happened in 1996 for Clinton.

Nor will it stop all of George Soros’ 11 major influence groups today even though some of them sponsor activities that border on treason. His funding of Antifa, Kavanaugh “hearing disruptors,” those people accosting Senate committee members or funding caravans of illegal immigrants from Central America may have to wait for other solutions. But the amendment would prevent him and other rich contributors from replacing constituents’ wishes in choosing representatives. Expect by-partisan opposition from the rich.

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and to applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, visit


Reader Comments


Our Family of Publications Includes:

Powered by ROAR Online Publication Software from Lions Light Corporation
© Copyright 2019

Rendered 08/18/2019 16:54