by Jon Styf
Tennessee ranked 16th in campaign finance integrity in a new report by the government watchdog group Coalition for Integrity.
The rankings were based upon questions related to campaign finance laws in statewide elections.
Tennessee scored a 72.14 out of 100 while Washington (83.99), California (80.95), Maine (80.48) and Connecticut (79.52) led the way. The lowest scores were Indiana (38.33), South Dakota (45.06), Utah (45.48) and Alabama (49.64).
“How these races are financed and how much transparency is required are key to curbing the influence of money in our political system and enhancing trust that politicians are not representing only wealthy special interests,” the group said while releasing the findings. “A state’s score does not necessarily mean its politicians are more or less corrupt than another, but it does reflect the willingness of the state’s politicians to favor special interests and lessen the appearance that politicians are beholden to donors who write the biggest checks.”
The report pointed out that, while 13 states have no Political Action Committee limitations on donations to candidates, Tennessee caps that amount at $12,700.
There are 14 states that limit those contributions to below $2,900 and 16 more cap contributions from a PAC to below $10,000.
“Iowa and Tennessee both scored 0.83 for minimally limiting campaign contributions,” the report said. “Iowa limits contributions to candidates from corporations and unions, and Tennessee limits contributions to candidates from individuals.”
For corporate or union contributions, Tennessee has a $12,700 cap for statewide offices such as Governor or state representative and a $25,400 cap for Senate candidates.
– – –
Jon Styf is an award-winning editor and reporter who has worked in Illinois, Texas, Wisconsin, Florida and Michigan in local newsrooms over the past 20 years, working for Shaw Media, Hearst and several other companies.
Mae Beavers
Joe Carr
VOTE
JOHN GENTRY
Got it. Thanks. I voted for “Mickey Mouse” in the primary in protest to the loser Lee.
Money will find its way into political races no matter what. Just look at Lee. He bought himself a governorship. How about putting a low cap on how much a candidate and their affiliated organizations can contribute? The “general” running for the new TN district 5 poured tons of money into his own race.
Donors to political campaigns do not usually give to challengers. But, it seems that many are willing to give to an incumbent. Candidates with famous names usually do well in political fund raising. Candidates who are just ordinary citizens have difficulty raising money for their political campaigns. Just look at the Tennessee Republican primary for governor four years ago—in my opinion, the most qualified and the best candidate in the group, State Senator Mae Beavers, could not raise the money required to stay in the race, so she had to ‘drop out.’ The rest were multi-millionaires and remained in the race. Is this the kind of Constitutional Republic that we want in Tennessee—one where only the VERY WEALTHY, or the VERY WELL-CONNECTED, will be serious candidates because only they will have, or will have access to, the BIG MONEY required to run and win?
In my opinion, it is not the monetary limits that are most important, rather, IT IS THE PRE-ELECTION PUBLIC REPORTING OF THE AMOUNTS GIVEN, AND THE NAMES OF THE DONORS OF THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS, THAT ARE MOST IMPORTANT, SO THAT THE VOTER MAY MAKE AS INFORMED A CHOICE AS POSSIBLE BEFORE HE CASTS HIS BALLOT.
You will notice that in the subject article, the SO-CALLED government watchdog group favors those jurisdictions (Washington (83.99), California (80.95), Maine (80.48) and Connecticut (79.52)) where, in my opinion, the ordinary voters probably have the LEAST say in who their elected leaders will be, and the political BOSSES have the MOST say.