A professor emeritus from right here in the Keystone State (The University of Pennsylvania, to be exact) has recently published a draft of a paper regarding federal elections and what he calls their “campaign finance problem.”
William G. Grisby’s 12-page paper, titled, “The Federal Election,” includes an executive summary with eight key points, which features background on Constitutional law related to elections, as well as residency requirements and more.
He also offers up a partial solution to the problem: Consistency in residency requirements.
Grisby notes: While residency and other requirements related to citizens’ voting rights, there is a “sharp contrast” when considering campaign finance laws.
“This huge difference between the two sets of rules is striking because the right to make campaign finance contributions is the child f our right to vote; that is, without the right to vote, campaign contributions would not even exist. Making residency requirements for contributions the same as they are for voting would give recognition to this familial relationship and in the process would bring some consistency to this area of election law.”
And what’s more, he said: Placing residency requirements on political campaign contributors would ensure that outside interests or groups could not spend an inordinate amount of money to influence the outcome of an election.
To read more about what the author describes as a “partial solution,” click here.