made a habit of having her husband contribute to her campaign whenever she fell behind in the fundraising race. Unlike the rest of us, candidates’ spouses can contribute unlimited sums of money to a campaign. A spouse can draw upon the wealth of their husband or wife because property may be transferred between the two without taxation–something which is not allowed for gay and lesbian couples
Since neither the federal government nor any state government (save Massachusetts) recognizes gay marriages, the spouse of a gay or lesbian candidate could not make similar unlimited contributions to his (or her) beloved’s campaign. Boi wonders whether this limitation of gay and lesbian candidates’ fundraising abilities also limits their ability to “seek and hold public office.”
Interesting point. I would raise another one. This is just another example of the absurdities of campaign finance reform legislation. The provision that Boi references benefits not all straight candidates, just those straight married candidates (like John Kerry) who have wealthy spouses. (A spouse of modest means would not have the resources to pour into her (or his) beloved’s campaign.)
Perhaps, this example will stir gay and lesbian activists to join conservatives and libertarians who seek to repeal McCain-Feingold and other such campaign finance laws. Log Cabin has joined conservative groups in supporting Social Security reform. Here’s another opportunity for them to work for conservative reform which benefits gay people.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com