Where do you hide the money clip in a diaper?

From the www.washingtonpost.com

"Elrick Williams's toddler niece Carlyn may be one of the youngest contributors to this year's presidential campaign. The 2-year-old gave $2,300 to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). "

"So did her sister and brother, Imara, 13, and Ishmael, 9, and her cousins Chan and Alexis, both 13. Altogether, according to newly released campaign finance reports, the extended family of Williams, a wealthy Chicago financier, handed over nearly a dozen checks in March for the maximum allowed under federal law to Obama."

"Although campaign finance laws set a limit of $2,300 per donor per campaign, they do not explicitly bar donors based on age. And young donors abound in the fundraising reports filed by presidential contenders this year. "

"Just how much campaign cash is coming from children is uncertain -- the FEC does not require donors to provide their age. But the amount written by those identifying themselves as students on contribution forms has risen dramatically this year, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics. During the first six months of the 2000 presidential campaign, students gave $338,464. In 2004, that rose to $538,936. This year, the amount has nearly quadrupled, to $1,967,111."

This is just another reason why campaign finance laws do not work and will not work. Americans wish to contribute to campaigns in excess of campaign finance law and they will find ways to do it.

The Federal Election Commission was created in 1975 to enforce federal campaign laws. These laws can be found here. Take a look on your lunch break and see how far you get through 234 pages. These laws include necessary things like rules for administering federal elections, but a large portion is dedicated to the financing of federal elections.

The finance portion include such distinctions as an individual may only contribute $2300.00 to each individual candidate per election per year, $28,500.00 to a national party per year, but he/she may make "unlimited independent expenditures." An independent expenditure is "an expenditure for a communication which expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate and which is made independently from the candidate's campaign."

First of all, the wealthy will always be disproportionally represented among those who contribute money to political candidates. Poor people do not have 5 dollars, let alone 2300 to contribute to a candidate.

Second of all, our government is based on popular support, which means candidates are elected by 51 percent of voters: Bill Gate's vote does not count anymore than mine and any candidate must at least attract a majority of the people to hold office. Sure a large amount of money is important for campaigning, but an unattractive, and therefore unelectable candidate, is still unattractive and unelectable (READ: the money follows the attractive candidate and not the candidate following the money).

Third of all, our large, Republican style of government ensures that no one group or one person can have too much of an impact on an election. A million dollars is chump change in American politics. There are probably tens of thousands of groups and individuals who can contribute this much. These groups, which politicians are quick to accept money from but also quick to point out as the problem, actually function as a check on each other.

Last of all, I am still not convinced that these laws are not unconstitutional: political speech is the most sacred of all rights.