Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Editorials
Thursday, April 13, 2000Donations to charities
from campaign fundsCAMPAIGN expenditures are by definition -- and by state law -- intended to influence elections. But that law has not been adequately enforced. Politicians who wish to make charitable donations from their campaign chests want to change the law to allow them to legally continue doing so. However, changing the law would legitimize a practice that is unintended under current law and could have undesirable effects.The issue: The Senate is considering legislation that would allow politicians to make contributions to charities from their campaign funds.
The state Campaign Spending Commission ruled in February that politicians are not allowed to use campaign donations for charitable contributions. Bob Watada, the commission's executive director, said politicians have made such donations to charities "just to keep their name alive" in non-election years. However, he said some of that "comes very close to buying votes," creating an incentive for supporters of the charity to vote for the politician to assure future donations.
Contributors to political campaigns expect their contributions to be spent to win elections. Using those funds for other purposes could be a radical departure from campaign-related activities. Watada says the commission has received complaints from contributors that their money has gone to charities of which they disapprove.
Politicians may help charitable organizations in other ways. For example, a politician may host a golf tournament or other event to raise money for a particular charity. Contributions by guests at such an event go directly to the charity, while the politician benefits by public exposure as the host.
In such cases, the politician's support of the charity is open and direct, and the purpose of donations to such an event is clear.
Matt Matsunaga, co-chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, argues that state legislators are asked to contribute to many charities and nonprofit organizations. So are many other citizens, and they make contributions -- which are tax-deductible -- from their personal bank accounts. Politicians should donate to charities like everybody else.
African leader condones
illegal farm seizuresNEXT Tuesday will mark the 20th anniversary of independence for Zimbabwe, the former British African colony of Rhodesia. The government has called off the scheduled celebration -- military parades, tribal dancing and sports events honoring veterans of the guerrilla war against white rule -- explaining it wanted to use the money to help victims of recent floods.
In fact, Zimbabwe is in the midst of its worst economic crisis and a chaotic situation involving the armed occupation of white-owned farms by black squatters.
President Robert Mugabe has condoned the illegal seizures, arguing they are a justified protest against unfair land ownership. One-third of the nation's land is owned by a few thousand whites; about 1.5 million black families live on the other two-thirds.
The seizures threaten to wreck attempts to reconcile whites and blacks in Zimbabwe and could make it an international pariah. By contrast, neighboring South Africa's transition to black majority rule has been more successful.
Twenty years ago the outlook for Zimbabwe was clouded as Prince Charles presided over the transfer of sovereignty. After seven years of guerrilla war, a black nationalist government had been elected. Although the election campaign had been marred by violence and intimidation, there was hope for an end to violence.
Former guerrilla leader Mugabe, an admitted Marxist, assumed office as prime minister after leading his party to a landslide election victory.
Mugabe called for peace, moderation and reconciliation. He promised to bring other parties into the government and vowed that he would not impose any program of nationalization or expropriation. He even persuaded two prominent white politicians to join the cabinet.
One of Mugabe's most significant gestures of reconciliation in order to prevent whites from emigrating was his offer to retain a British general as supreme military commander, but the general, Peter Walls, soon resigned in frustration. He outraged Mugabe by disclosing that he had asked British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to reject the election results on grounds of widespread intimidation by Mugabe's party.
Twenty years later, Mugabe is still in power, but faces growing opposition.
Recently, with his approval, squatters led by armed men claiming to be veterans of the independence war have illegally occupied and staked claims to more than 900 white-owned farms. Mugabe's refusal to protect the white farmers constitutes a betrayal of trust and could destroy any remaining confidence in the government.
Before Zimbabwe was born, Mugabe was regarded as an extremist, an image he initially sought to dispel after assuming leadership of the new nation. Now his extremism has again been exposed, while the dream of a united nation fades.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
