Dead Man Voting Contributing
In USA Today, they report on a weird twist in Federal campaign laws that allows dead people to make political contributions. No, really. Dead people.
WASHINGTON — Harold Schooler died in 2003, but his political activism lives on.The former piano salesman and musician is among more than 160 dead people who have given more than $540,000 to political committees and candidates for the White House and Congress over the past eight years, an analysis of political donations shows.
The estate of Schooler, who lived in Palm Springs, Calif., has donated $28,500 this year to the Democratic National Committee.
Federal rules allow such donations as long as contributions don't exceed legal limits and the intentions of the deceased were known, said Federal Election Commission spokesman Bob Biersack. Such gifts are fairly rare, he said.
Kent Cooper, a campaign-finance expert and former Federal Election Commission official, admits these contributions are "a little strange and unusual."
"People hear now and then of accusations of dead people voting," he said, "but these are examples of dead people continuing to give and give and give."
The Democratic committee received the most campaign money from deceased donors, nearly $225,000, according to USA TODAY's tally of federal campaign-finance data compiled by CQ MoneyLine, a non-partisan group. The Republican National Committee was the second-largest recipient, with about $93,000.
I don't really care who is getting the money, this should not be allowed. While it might be possible to allow a one-time bequest at a person's death, a continuing series of donations long after someone is dead is ridiculous. There is no way for that dead person to decide that he or she does not like the direction his or her party is heading.
By martian, Wednesday, 28 November , 2007 @ 10:54 am
I agree. It’s possible a party’s platform could change significantly after the death of the donor and take positions that the donor would find objectionable. This is the equivalent of voting a straight party ticket without any due diligence on the part of the voter. A single bequest would be acceptable since it happens at a single point in time when (hopefully) the party has a platform the donor agrees with and wishes to support.
By NortonPete, Wednesday, 28 November , 2007 @ 6:03 pm
The saying “you can’t rule from the grave” means that a will cannot be written to make decisions based on future circumstances. Such as “I will my money to my daughter as long as she doen’t marry a democrat”. A will cannot be wriiten that way.
But you can set up a trust that says, “my daughter will receive X amount of dollars each year she doesn’t marry a democrat”. So setting up a trust that donates money each year is an accepted practice. As per my Wife, the estate para legal.
By Neo, Wednesday, 28 November , 2007 @ 6:16 pm
There is this old Jimmy Carter story about how when he first entered politics in the then-Democrat-controlled Georgia House, the first debate that he was in was trying to decide just how long after a person dies , they should be “allowed to vote”.
Jimmy thought the whole debate a farce, but the other member were serious.
By NortonPete, Wednesday, 28 November , 2007 @ 7:09 pm
Here in NJ you can vote in the after life, but then you can do alot strange things politically in NJ
By NortonPete, Wednesday, 28 November , 2007 @ 7:11 pm
Sorry about the double post, please delete. I’m having DSL problems