Volume 3, Issue 3: May - June, 2002

Contents Cover Story     Child Labor Laws Articles     Just In My Opinion     Perspective     Sue’s Review Features     Buzz     Letters     News Links     Redirect

Letters On the March/April Cover Story I read your opinion piece concerning the newly passed Campaign Finance Bill and its limitation on contributions by minors.  I’m an avid news junky, and I found your piece interesting since I’d seen NO mention of this on any news show, despite the over-coverage of the campaign finance issue by the news media. I find the whole notion of campaign finance reform to be an assault on free speech.  Congress tends to work around its constitutionally mandated limits by passing a patchwork of small laws that, taken individually, will be found constitutional.  They hope that courts will not look at the laws in a larger context, where it is clear that each small restriction is meant to add to a total ban on campaign speech. Having said that, I believe you missed a crucial point in your piece which would likely explain the reason for the age restriction.  Most big contributors tend to give the maximum contribution amount, which is fairly small by a wealthy person’s standards.  So these people tend to have their spouses, kids, and even employees contribute the maximum amount also, thus bumping up the effective amount they have contributed. Since most people under 17 have few resources of their own, it is likely that most of the money which originates from minors represents “sham” contributions that are really from the minors’ parents.  I believe that is what Congress wanted to eliminate. Spencer The author responds: I must’ve been in too big a rush to get the article done.  I guessed that this section of HR2356 (prohibiting campaign contributions by people under 18) was stuck in there by someone eager to trumpet their concern for children. Two people wrote to me with this alternate explanation, and they’re quite right.  However, a provision banning this kind of third-party sneakery (using third parties as “intermediaries” or “conduits” for donations) already existed in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and the recently-passed reform bill didn’t eliminate that prohibition.  So using one’s children (or other family members) to increase one’s maximum donation is already covered elsewhere; there is no need to ban genuine, self-motivated contributions by youth!  Just because adults have sometimes used their kids to violate the law, that’s no reason  to penalize young people by taking away more rights. Susan Wishnetsky