Most Recent News

Letting foreigners donate to campaigns

Chicago, IL
By A.B. Dada
—

As many know, I’m not a fan of voting in an actual campaign to elect a political official. To me, the act of voting has two problems: (a) it informs political candidates that you accept giving up personal sovereignty (over yourself, your property and your income) in exchange for accepting future actions of a candidate, and (b) it promotes the use of force to make societal change.

In terms of personal sovereignty, one must acknowledge a few “evils” of the political system:

1. You aren’t asking someone to continue to do what they’ve done in the past, but you are approving their future actions even if they’re evil. This means that you may tell someone you are voting for them because they’ve lowered taxes in the past, but if they start raising taxes after an election, your vote gave them the power to do so. You have no chance to change your vote until the next election.

2. You are acknowledging that someone else has certain powers over your body, your property and your money. I know that the police aren’t there to protect me (no matter what their car slogans say), so why would I give them the power to use force against me or anyone else, if there isn’t any proof that the use of force is good rather than bad? When you tell someone it is fine to take your money, for whatever reason they decide, you’re giving up the individual responsibility of handling that money properly and using it for what makes your life better today or in the future. As a sovereign individual, you accept the responsibility of earning, saving and spending — if you screw up, you have only yourself to blame.

3. The act of voting is the act of accepting the outcome of all previous politicians. Even if you disagree with what politicians have done in the past (and actively voted them out), your vote still tells future politicians that you support the system, even when it was terrible. A Republican voting for a Republican says that they accept the person’s actions in office, and if that person was a Democrat, the voting system got them there. Voting, from my perspective, is the active acceptance of social contracts (unsigned), theft through taxation, preferential treatment of regulated industries, and the use of force (in your name) against individuals who may not have ever harmed you and had no connection to your life.

Because many people who are familiar with me know I have these beliefs, I come under a great burden for my financial and written-word support of Dr. Ron Paul, who is running for President on a Smaller Federal Government campaign stance. I have even actively said that I may “vote” in the primary, which is an election that gives no one any additional sovereignty over anyone, it just puts their message at the top of the actual election for the position.

I’ve said it before — I believe you should vote with your money and your own actions. That is the best vote you can make. When you buy a burger from Burger King instead of McDonalds across the street, you actively vote by saying “Burger King meets my needs best.” That vote can be changed the next day, or the next week, or never. The same is true of an employer-employee relationship where the employer uses money (”vote”) to tell the employee that they are the best provider for a service, and the employee tells the employer that they are the best provider for the employee’s financial income (”vote”). This is good because that vote can also be changed by either party. I also believe this form of voting via money and actions is better than political voting: if you don’t like abortion, don’t have an abortion, and make active steps with your money and your actions to help others considering an abortion (adopt their child, give them money to support raising the child, volunteer your time to teach or babysit the child). This is far better than any law because it gives each unique situation the care and finances it needs to fulfill a better end result. Laws against abortion are never written how you might want them to be written, and they don’t consider each and every possible situation as is presented. Laws are too vague and usually not very consistent.

Because I believe that the act of voting with your dollars and your actions is key to changing society for the better, I believe that everyone who is effected by government should be able to spend their money to make change as they see fit. Even if they can’t vote in an election, they should be able to support a message of a given candidate, party or PAC with whatever funds they see fit. I believe all campaign finance laws are unconstitutional — the right to speak and the right to advocate your opinion goes hand-in-hand with how you spend your money. Buying a burger from Burger King is advocating support for Burger King over McDonalds, which is a form of expression, even if you don’t vocalize it.

Today, because of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1974, foreigners can not use their money freely to support their opinion or expression as they want to. The U.S. Constitution acknowledges that ALL people, citizens, legal and illegal aliens, and foreigners, are all born with the freedom to speak and express themselves. Some people may live in a country where this right is trampled on by their government, but our Constitution is written to tell government that they have no right to hamper that inherent (God-given in my opinion) right to express yourself. The law is written against government, and it is clear:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The First Amendment to the Constitution was written to stop government from getting in the way of your right to speak, or assemble, or express yourself, or petition said government for a redress of grievances. It was written to block the United States government from acting in any way, against anyone (citizen, foreigner, alien) at any time. Any Federal law written to restrain your inherent freedom to speak, assemble or support your beliefs is illegal, regardless of what the SCOTUS says.

That being said, the United States is currently involved in over 100 countries in the world — countries where the people of those countries don’t have the freedom to support messages they agree with in the U.S. I believe that FECA is wrong to restrict who can use their money to support the messages they want to — foreign or abroad. If a foreigner wishes to support a campaign of a Federal politician, they should be free to. Sure, this could mean more money for Hilary or Giuliani, but since the U.S. believes it can entangle itself with foreigners, those foreigners should have the ability to support any message they wish — pro-entanglement or against it.

Dr. Paul has a huge support base outside of the U.S. There are dozens of websites of foreigners that support his campaign. Personally, I support his message over his campaign (as even Dr. Paul himself has said). The message of less government is a positive message to support, and I will continue to do so financially, even if he doesn’t get my vote in the big election itself. While I believe that Paul would be the best person of all the current politicians for the role of President, my moral compass disallows me from giving up my sovereignty even to someone that I like and generally trust. The act of voting for Paul, if you spend your vote on any other politician (say Congress or Senate), approves of what the next group of elect will do in office. Paul might be President, but do you trust the rest of the elect, Congress and Senate, to do right? Over-riding a Presidential veto is not that hard if you have 535 pro-force Representatives versus 1 anti-force (generally) President.

I believe it is time to let all people vote with their dollars, through commercial purchases, employment agreements, and support of a candidate’s message. I also believe it is fine for someone who is anti-State to support the message of a candidate, even finance them, and not be a hypocrite as long as an active vote for the final election is cast.