I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on TV, and unless I'm mistaken it's illegal for political candidates to take contributions from minors. According to section 318 of the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002":
Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), as amended by section 101, is further amended by adding at the end the following new section:So did Senator Kerry admit to breaking the law on "Live With Regis and Kelly"?"PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY MINORS
"SEC. 324. An individual who is 17 years old or younger shall not make a contribution to a candidate or a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party.".
Kerry campaign donors apparently come in all sizes. He told Philbin and Ripa that a woman in New York gave him $385 that her 8-year-old son had raised selling homemade campaign buttons, and a 6-year-old in Philadelphia handed over a plastic container with $685 he had earned selling homemade campaign bracelets.Sounds illegal to me.
Update:
Or not! I'm told that provision was struck down by the Supreme Court last Fall in McConnell v. FEC. See, I told you I wasn't a lawyer. Still, even though my accusation was essentially wrong, shouldn't we focus on the key issue of how John Kerry employs child slave labor to finance his campaign?
But he may be a hypocrite, as Michelle Malkin is reporting that Kerry co-sponsored that bill. So he's now taking money from kids when before he thought it objectionable enough to endorse legislation against it.
I'm not a lawyer either, but doesn't that section of Title III make it unlawful for the minor to contribute? I don't see anything there that puts the focus on the recipient of the donation, although if they knew the contributor was underage, they would be a sleazeball for taking the $
But wait:
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040920_592.html
Judges are getting in the game again.
I'm not a lawyer, either, but I've been to law school. Which has nothing to do with my point.
My first preference on campaign contributions would be that you cannot contribute to a candidate that you could not vote for. That means minors and foreign nationals would be barred from contributing. So would corporations, unions, and PACs. Nor would a citizen be allowed to contribute to a politician outside of his state or district.
For purposes of this law, I'd allow contributions of one's personal time and labor to anyone. The ban would cover only money and tangible goods.
This proposal has some problems, practical problems and arguable Constitutional problems, so I'd also be happy with an alternative: no restrictions whatsoever on contributions, but the candidate must make full and prompt disclosure of every cent received.
SF: I used to be a big fan of disclosure rules, but then I considered how important anonymity has been at times throughout the history of democracy. So now I'm not sure.
Well, how about this: remove so much power from government that there's no incentive to bribe politicians and candidates.
Agreed about the general desirability of anonymity, but it loses out when in direct opposition to some other values, such as making sure politicians aren't bought and paid for by those whose interests are not in the general welfare.
SF: Right. Power corrupts, and the only way to reduce government corruption is to reduce government power.