How do you feel about allowing political campaign funds to be used to pay for childcare expenses? That’s what HB651 would make legal. A bill that passed the House and is currently up for consideration in the State Senate.
HB651 would modify expenditures under campaign finance law to,
“…include disbursements constituting independent expenditures, as defined in paragraph XI, and expenses incurred by a candidate for childcare.”
What exactly are “expenses incurred by a candidate for childcare”?
There’s no clarification. There is no definition for either “child” or “care.” Do they have to be your children or can they be someone else’s?
There is no standard that limits expenditures to the children of parents or legal guardians running for office. There is no law to prevent people from paying for the childcare of children that are not theirs. Why couldn’t anyone under HB 651 use campaign dollars to pay anyone claiming to care for any child for which there are expenses?
And what is care, and what is a child under HB651?
Given the proclivity of the culture to demand things of or for anyone by abandoning existing definitions of common words, this seems sloppy to me. It might even be a trap.
One loaded with invitations for abuse that the Democrat majority legislature is driving toward with zeal.
What About Equality of Outcome?
Most campaign expenses seem universal. Any candidate could incur them because running for office at any level has commonly recognized expenses. But not childcare. This expense is limited to people who choose to be candidates that have children. Unless of course, as noted above, any children and any care will do.
I assume the sponsor’s argument is that women who have chosen to raise children are handicapped by this choice from seeking public office. I’m handicapped by my job from seeking public office. Why not change the law to pay me my salary while I run?
Wait, let’s combine this with the ridiculous movement to publicly fund campaigns. Or add it to the income tax provision under the proposed paid family leave plan. If you don’t opt-out the state will take 0.05% of your income in case you decide to run for public office. And look, you can use it for childcare expenses, whatever that means.
We don’t know what any of it means, do we? Is that deliberate? Is this change poorly written on purpose? Should the Senate table it to resolve these issues? They should.
If and when they do, I have one more consideration worthy of their attention.
When can we expect campaign finance law to be amended to include the costs of doggy daycare? And make sure you define what ‘dog’ means.