Ordinary people

The Associated Press reported this week that a Virginia Senate committee advanced a bill Tuesday that would prohibit lawmakers from using campaign funds for personal expenses such as a mortgage or country club membership.

Lawmakers long had resisted adopting the change.

Surprise! There’s more.

Virginia state lawmakers are currently outliers in the nation for their ability to spend money donated to their campaigns on virtually anything, the AP noted. Despite a bipartisan insistence that lawmakers want to find compromise on reform, similar bills adding limits to how campaign funds can be spent have been repeatedly defeated in recent years.

We may want to stop right there.

While it may be tempting for anyone to live and socialize off of someone else’s dime, it is flat out wrong and unethical.

Political life already is rife with opportunities for far too many backroom deals designed to line the pockets of elected officials. Does the term kickbacks ring a bell? Corruption? Bribery? Fraud?

Fortunately, Virginia legislators showed that they can be above such shenanigans, as the AP further reports that applause broke out in the room after the bill from Sen. Jennifer Boysko and three Democratic colleagues passed unanimously.

“Nearly all other states and the federal government prohibit the use of campaign funds by a candidate or their families,” Sen. Boysko said as she presented her bill. “But in Virginia, we still could take our family on a Caribbean cruise if we choose, and I don’t think that’s right.”

We don’t either. Bravo Sen. Boysko. (Although a Caribbean cruise would be nice right about now given the Mercury Retrograde beating we all seem to have taken.)

The bill would prohibit a candidate from using campaign funds for an expense that would exist irrespective of the person seeking, holding or maintaining office. It allows contributions to be used for “ordinary and accepted expenses related to campaigning for or holding elective office.”

That last quote struck a chord, reminding us of the John Legend song “Ordinary People.”

We’re just ordinary people

We don’t know which way to go

‘Cause we’re ordinary people

Maybe we should take it slow

Word to the wise: In this case “take it slow” does not mean withdrawing campaign funds for leisurely and/or personal use. Rather, use the funds as they are intended to be used: judiciously and wisely.

In other words, pay your own mortgage and country club membership fees.

Below is a summary of the bill, SB1471, as introduced and as of Wednesday was re-referred to the Senate’s Finance and Appropriations Committee.

Campaign finance; prohibited personal use of campaign funds; complaints, hearings, civil penalty, and advisory opinions. Prohibits any person from converting contributions to a candidate or his campaign committee for personal use. Current law only prohibits such conversion of contributions with regard to disbursement of surplus funds at the dissolution of a campaign or political committee. The bill provides that a contribution is considered to have been converted to personal use if the contribution, in whole or in part, is used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense that would exist irrespective of the person’s seeking, holding, or maintaining public office but allows a contribution to be used for the ordinary and accepted expenses related to campaigning for or holding elective office, including the use of campaign funds to pay for the candidate’s child care expenses that are incurred as a direct result of campaign activity. The bill provides that any person subject to the personal use ban may request an advisory opinion from the State Board of Elections on such matters. The bill directs the State Board of Elections to adopt emergency regulations to implement the provisions of the bill and to provide an updated summary of Virginia campaign finance law that reflects the State Board of Elections’ and Attorney General’s guidance on the provisions of such law that prohibit the personal use of campaign funds and any new regulations promulgated by the State Board of Elections.

There is no way one can put a price on the value of a child’s education. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary.”

Dr. King’s words remind us that we must fix the root causes behind broken systems that continue to allow children to fall through the cracks. It starts by understanding how and why the systems are broken.

Experts trace the current teacher shortage to the 2008 Great Recession when the nation’s public education system lost more than 120,000 teachers. When the economy rebounded, and schools started hiring again, many of those who had left were reluctant to return.

Teacher shortages are not uncommon around the nation, but it tends to hit high-poverty schools in rural areas the hardest. Researchers have found that schools that serve a high percentage of minority students and students in poverty have more difficulty finding and retaining qualified teachers than white and more affluent schools. In many southern states, the long-standing problem continues to increase.

The nature and severity of the teacher crisis will differ drastically from state to state, district to district, and even from school to school. In an attempt to understand the teacher shortage issue, data found that the problem is worst in Mississippi.

Communities throughout the Mississippi Delta are rich in community pride and history but are economically poor. As manufacturing jobs left the region and agriculture became more automated, it resulted in a decrease in population.

Families who remain will send their children to deteriorating schools, which are difficult for officials to manage due to the dwindling tax base and a Mississippi state legislature that is reluctant to adequately fund schools at the per-student rate as required by law. The message being sent by lawmakers is clear. Investing in the future of children living in poverty doesn’t merit meeting the state funding requirement.

At the request of state lawmakers, three small-town school districts merged to become one –West Bolivar Consolidated

School District. West Bolivar Consolidated is 98 percent Black, while 100 percent of the students qualify for free or reduced-price meals. West Bolivar High School in Rosedale, Miss., and McEvans School in Shaw, Miss., are 18 miles apart, but teachers for math, Spanish, and science are forced to split their class instruction time between the two campuses via Zoom.

The geometry class at West Bolivar High has no teacher, forcing students to listen to a software program while in class. Chemistry students are often left to teach themselves. Those not reading at grade level will struggle to understand science lessons.

The decision to shortchange funding to high-poverty schools can impact a generation of Black students who are unprepared to acquire the job skills needed for future careers.

The economic future of Black children should be an incentive to vote for state lawmakers who are willing to fight for adequate funding for high-poverty schools. As it is difficult to attract new teachers from outside West Bolivar Consolidated, many people who currently work there grew up in the region.

Teachers also need to be paid. Low teacher salaries reduce the attractiveness of the teaching profession and serve as another