An Act Concerning The Maximum Amount An Individual May Contribute To The State Central Committee Of A Party.
Impact
The bill is expected to have significant implications for campaign finance within the state, particularly impacting how political parties can fund their operations and outreach efforts. By increasing the contribution limit, proponents suggest the bill will enable party committees to gather more resources, potentially enhancing their competitiveness in elections. This change could lead to a more robust funding environment for parties, allowing for more substantial campaign efforts and broader reach in engaging voters.
Summary
SB01120, also known as An Act Concerning The Maximum Amount An Individual May Contribute To The State Central Committee Of A Party, proposes to change the current limits on individual contributions to political party central committees in the state. Under the existing law, individuals are restricted to contributing no more than five thousand dollars to the state central committee of any political party. This bill seeks to raise that limit to ten thousand dollars starting from January 1, 2014. Additionally, it sets limits for contributions to town committees and legislative caucus committees as well.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding SB01120 appears to be varied. Supporters of the bill argue that raising the contribution limits is a necessary improvement for political parties that face high operational costs and need greater financial support to remain viable and effective in elections. Conversely, opponents might raise concerns about the risks of increased contributions leading to greater influence by wealthy individuals or special interest groups over political processes, potentially compromising the integrity of elections and diluting the voices of average voters.
Contention
Notable points of contention include the ethical implications of increasing contribution limits and the potential for disproportionate influence by affluent contributors in local and state politics. Critics often assert that such changes could exacerbate existing inequalities in political power, whereas advocates argue that it represents a legitimate means of empowering parties to engage in robust electoral competition. The debate is reflective of larger tensions in campaign finance reform, questions regarding transparency, and ensuring fair representation across the political spectrum.
Campaign finance: contributions and expenditures; provision related to officeholders raising funds when facing a recall; modify, and require candidate to establish a separate account used for recall purposes. Amends secs. 3, 11, 12, 21, 24 & 52 of 1976 PA 388 (MCL 169.203 et seq.) & adds sec. 21b.
Campaign finance: contributions and expenditures; funds donated to a candidate for recall efforts; require candidate to establish a separate account used for recall purposes. Amends secs. 3, 11, 12, 21, 24 & 52 of 1976 PA 388 (MCL 169.203 et seq.) & adds sec. 21b.
A concurrent resolution recognizing wild rice as sacred and central to the culture and health of Indigenous Peoples in Minnesota and critical to the health and identity of all Minnesota citizens and ecosystems and establishing a commitment to passing legislation to protect wild rice and the freshwater resources upon which it depends.