Here's the wrinkle, the taxes go to states run by Governors of the other Party, with distribution scaled to electoral college votes. If Hillary Clinton wanted to funnel campaign money to a long time former Staffer who now has a political consulting business, that's fine. At a 70 percent flat tax rate and those proceeds go to disproportionately to state budgets of Texas ( Greg Abbott) and Florida ( Ron De Santis) Of course other states with Red governors would get their cut as well.
How did the US government control the weed business as it became legal? Tax the living snot out of it. I looked at it from a business perspective, most small business owners did and the regulation and tax rates were punitive. It's "legal" but there are so many barriers to entry and functionality, that no one in their right mind could do the math and want to do it unless they had some very specific circumstances.
For a situation like Hunter Biden, you'd need a provision regarding relevant knowledge/experience for a Tier 1 family member for a board seat. ( Since it skirts the scope of direct campaign dollars) I.E. what does Hunter Biden know about Burisma's energy and natural gas? If Hunter Biden had a Master Degree in chemical engineering and worked for multiple years at like Exxon, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, etc, etc, then he can have that board seat and avoid the punitive tax rate. He would however be prevented from making any political donations to any Party or any individual while a direct family member was in office. If Jared Kushner spent his entire life in medicine and research like a Genedoc, and then his entire career in that field, and he got financial pork from a company in that area, so be it, if not, get taxed until the blood runs from your eyes.
There is a legit problem when you have a situation like Stacey Abrams.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/stacey-abrams-im-running-governor-200000-debt-191600455.html
She's in massive personal debt, she ran for Governor and when she did, she had to reveal that she was in that specific financial situation and still made numerous political contributions to the DNC. Are we going to pretend that for getting 850K people to register to vote, where she's under investigation to the methods and tactics ( some estimates show 60K underage people voted in Georgia, that's not a coincidence) wasn't set up for her to get a DNC quid pro quo later? A large book deal that washes out that personal debt or a Cabinet post or the DNC investing heavily into her next run for Governor?
If you want campaign finance reform, you can't fix a clearly corrupt system gamed out by both Republicans and Democrats in their respective parties. What you can do is tax them to oblivion like the weed industry.
If Burisma wants to give Hunter Biden 10 million dollars? Fine. Just make it so to get to 10 million to Hunter Biden personally, they have to give 100 million to start with 90 million of it going to the coffers of Florida and Texas. If Burisma wanted to give Jared Kushner 10 million dollars? Fine. Same thing, 100 million in cost to them with 90 million to California and other Blue states. 90 million can help a lot of libraries, after school programs, youth sports programs, homeless programs, mental health programs, etc, etc.
What say you, Max Power? I am happy to see another outspoken Conservative here and am sure something along these lines is what you were getting at in spirit. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Anyone here who leans left have a problem with what I just said? Anyone want to argue that taxation changes would not solve campaign finance corruption on both sides of the aisle ( i.e bi-partisan reform)? Any lefties want to pick a fight now over this? If so, get in a line. Then get in my face and let's see how it plays out.
