Do I Politicize my Dollars?

Momentary deviation from the appropriation of my tax dollars to an issue concerning November's election. 

Watching the news Saturday morning, I overheard the opening lines to a story about an Ohio resident heavily campaigning for the legalization of marijuana in Massachusetts. Such out of state lobbying, especially in the form of lavish donations, is not uncommon. Yet having recently sent in my absentee ballot, this man’s unsolicited interference in my state’s election felt oddly unsettling.

Such uneasiness got me thinking: should such intervention in state elections be allowed? What’s its advantage? What is the disadvantage? Would I do it?

In doing research for this blog, I learned that while there are caps on how much a person or organization can contribute to state and federal elections, no such restrictions exist for ballot measure campaigns. That made me feel slightly better. Critics argue that such sky’s-the-limit policies favor special interest groups with deep pockets.  For example, opponents of the second question on the Massachusetts ballot regarding physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients have generated over $900,000. Less than $25,000, approximately 2%, of that sum has originated in Massachusetts (http://www.wcvb.com/news/investigative/Out-of-state-cash-shaping-Massachusetts-ballot-measure-prospects/-/12520878/17158100/-/item/2/-/b1kpmjz/-/index.html).

A summary of question 2 on the Massachusetts ballot. Various special interest groups have intervened on behalf of both sides of the controversial legislation but a lot of money has filtered in from groups opposing it. 

Photo credit: http://www.bostonglobe.com/2012/10/15/bgcom-ballot-graphic/7dHMyt8p1HzsTcm5ME1QkO/story.html 

The obvious disadvantage is that the deeper the pockets, the deeper the influence. Political superiority goes to the group who supplies the most funds, not the group who should have the most power: the voters.  

I assume one of the advantages to forceful lobbying in one state is to encourage the passage of the same or similar legislation in another state. One sets an example, the nation watches the outcome, and ideally the other states respond supportively. The practice of “peer pressure” goes all the way to the signing of the Constitution. But in my opinion, the only body allowed to tie the hands of other states is the Federal Government. If the Federal Government decides to apply legislation to the entire country, fine. But if a special interest group not even from my state makes a point to ensure the passing of legislation that does not even affect them, then that is not fine.

To answer my last question, I eventually resolved that I would not interfere with another state’s election, even if my financial situation allowed me to do so. Although I disagree with a lot of the policies of other states (someone explain to me why it’s legal in some states to marry an animal but not to marry someone of the same gender), their legislation is not my call. If I become a legal resident of that state then it becomes my call. In that situation I also relinquish my claim to impact anything Massachusetts decides. But as a current Massachusetts resident, what happens in Massachusetts should be up to the voters OF Massachusetts.