Campaign Finance Gone Awry

I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I can tell when something is amiss.

Each of us - you and I - are limited to making a maximum $2500 contribution to a political campaign. But it seems that SOME of us are more equal than others, and can contribute millions.

Consider this - IF you could get Oprah Winfrey to make an appearance at one of your events, she would charge you perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars. So, her time, and her celebrity, is worth that much.

So how is it that she can contribute that value on behalf of a campaign? Every time she shows up on behalf of Obama, she is effectively contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaign. Why is this not a violation of campaign laws?

It was not long ago that the New York Times took a beating for giving MoveOn.org a price break on political advertising. What is so different when the value of a celebrity appearance is not considered as having any value?

According to the IRS, if Oprah's time and celebrity has "appearance value", and she were to contribute her time and celebrity to a campaign, that should, under current law, constitute a taxable gain to Obama. But for some reason, he is not taxed on the value received (as we would be), nor is her contribution considered to be a contribution.

Like I said, I can tell when something is amiss. As a consultant who charges for his time, if I were to donate my consulting services to anyone, the IRS would deem that as taxable gain to the recipient. But not so when it is a celebrity donating to politicians. Why is it different?

In reality, of course, it is not different. It is simply "conveniently" overlooked. And it is not just celebrities who get away with this - the media does the same thing. The New York Times will spend millions promoting political campaigns in their rag. Yet, it is not considered a "contribution".

But it is, indeed, a contribution - giving value to another without charge. That is a contribution.