There is a similar GATE on our ‘Fence of Social Restraint.’ That Gate is called ‘CONFLICT OF INTEREST’. Whenever federal elections campaign finance reform legislation is involved, Congress has a ‘Conflict of Interest’ and must be disqualified from any involvement in its legislation. That leaves the Gate open for the people to directly legislate.

1) Could significantly impair the individuals objectivity; or
2) could create an unfair competitive advantage for any person or organization.

Fiduciary relationships abound in society. A fiduciary is a person who is required to act for the benefit of another person on all matters within the scope of their relationship. This type of relationship exists between a trustee and the beneficiary of that trust, between lawyer and his client, between corporate director and his corporation, and between public official and their constituency. Because a fiduciary is required to act for the benefit of another, certain duties and obligations arise out of this relationship. One of the primary duties is the duty of loyalty. Corporate directors and officers cannot serve themselves and the corporation at the same time. Their duty is to the corporation.

The director-corporation relationship is directly analogous to the relationship between a publicly elected official, and the constituency that elected them. As fiduciaries, these publicly elected officials owe a similar duty of loyalty to the public they serve. They cannot serve themselves and the public at the same time.

The duty of loyalty that public officials owe to the public is evident in both federal and state law. The federal prohibition on bribery directly reflects the duty of loyalty federal officials owe the public. The official’s duty to the public overrides any personnel consideration of financial gain. Similarly, federal law prohibits executive officers and others similarly situated from participating personally and substantially in matters in which they, or others close to them, have a financial interest.

Congress has acknowledged that ‘conflicts of interest’ may arise in the course of official duties, and has preempted possible conflicts by forbidding participation in official acts where those financial conflicts exist. Officials are required to recuse themselves from decision-making when these conflicts exist.

Campaign finance reform is an issue in which elected lawmakers are intimately tied. While elected officials are dependent on financial contributions to fund their elections, campaign finance reform is focused on restricting certain contributions to these campaigns. It is evident that elected officials have a personal interest in campaign finance reform. When the issue of campaign finance reform arises in Congress, every member is financially interested in the outcome. As members of Congress need money from outside sources to fund their campaigns, any decision they make regarding campaign finance reform involves an inherent ‘conflict of interest'. Disqualifying congress from all involvement in federal elections campaign finance reform legislation is the only ethical choice available.

The DUTY OF LOYALTY Congress owes to their constituents can only be fulfilled when they disqualify themselves from any involvement in the establishment of federal elections campaign finance reform legislation. They will not. Congress has violated our mutual social contract by refusing to create principled and ethical federal elections campaign finance reform legislation. They have violated their duty of loyalty.

Therefore, The People, acting as sovereign, chose to convene a National Convention and legislate campaign finance reform law directly, convene State Conventions to ratify that legislation, and enact that legislation through a national popular vote.

Copyright: National Plebiscite July 14, 2002

[ Back to Top ]