Government employees should be barred from donating to campaigns and barred from voting. I don't see it as a violation of their rights. They have the right to work in the private sector if they want to vote. I talked to someone yesterday who said a teacher told her the pressure from the teachers union to vote Democrat is incredible. She said some do it just to protect their jobs even though no one could really know for sure who you voted for.

The hidden question is "Can government employees be relied upon to be objective and to exercise the power provided by their position with integrity?" Recent events, as well as many from the past, suggest no.

Being that as described by our founders, those in the employ of the gov't are a 'privileged' "employee" in that their "income" comes solely from the American People [Citizens of the several states, federal territories or those allowed to work in under the protection of these United States that are not citizens of it.

For this reason they should not be legally allowed to donate money to vote for anyone except their own State Candidates and definitely not the the Executive [Pres. & Vice Pres.] The Privilege term is important because from the beginning of the U.S. Constitution until now and even in 1862 it points out who is and isn't liable to certain laws of these United States of America. This being said; these are the only American citizen "employee's" with "income" deemed payable to the federal gov't through the Internal Revenue Tax collected by the IRS.

Again those being paid by tax dollars should not be allowed to donate to the entity that can increase their income or the amount of people so privileged to be 'employed' under them.

While the donation portion of this posting is purely my opinion made from my understanding, and vast study of the history of these United States, of the what the founders deemed corrected..the laws governing the Tax liability of the American People to the federal government is not; it is factual and legally binding.

Holcomb--that is, the author of the piece--actually touches on an important element here. It says 97 percent of all political donations are going to the obvious big-government candidate. (Whether that's 97 percent of checks written or 97 percent of the aggregate amount of the checks, Holcomb does not make clear.) He says of course they are giving to Clinton, because they are much afraid Trump will fire the lot.

But Holcomb misses one important element. It's one thing to say, "Trump has no reason to trust these particular government employees, so of course he will fire them, and hire his own men to fill their slots." But it would be quite another matter altogether to say, "So-and-so will come in wielding an ax to chop off the deadwood of government." Which of course is what John Galt would do, if anyone ever persuaded him to run for President and if by some chance he could win election. He would eliminate all the quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial bodies, and in fact every department except those of State, the Treasury, Defense, and Justice.

Any discussion of limits on the campaigning activities, private donations, or voting rights of government employees, must take that into account.

Note carefully: government employees' activities fall into three categories. The first--overt campaigning on government time--is already illegal. Research the phrase "Hatch Act" in any search engine. Under it, no employee may use a government copying machine to run off campaign flyers or posters, nor work on a campaign while on paid leave.

Next would be the private donations. Since employment by the government is an act of mutual consent, it follows that the government may restrict private giving by government employees and their immediate families if they so wish. And maybe the people should insist upon that.

Finally, as to voting: the late Robert A. Heinlein, in Starship Troopers, projected a society in which military or other government service members would not be allowed to vote while working for the government. "Why, if they let [members of a certain combat unit] vote, the idiots might vote not to [go on a combat mission]. Can't have that!" Of course, Heinlein proposed limiting the franchise to those who had completed a term of government service lasting two years or more--and did not propose to limit the types of service that would qualify one for the franchise. (For instance, terraforming engineers would also qualify, this although they were not military.)

And United States history has examples of manipulation of "the soldier vote." Abraham Lincoln so manipulated the votes of soldiers and sailors in the United States Army and Navy in the Election of 1864. Barack Obama's critics lay the same charge at his door, especially as regards absentee balloting.

And in this context, I must tell you all: Governor Terry McAuliffe of Virginia has implicated himself in a scheme, in Fairfax County, Virginia, to stuff absentee ballot envelopes with Democratic Party campaign materials, in clear violation of Virginia election law. I intend to raise this issue at my next opportunity to meet in person with certain members of the Virginia House of Delegates, with a view to bringing Articles of Impeachment against the governor for that offense.

All that to say: the right of citizens to vote need not, in my opinion, apply to those who have a vested interest in the growth of government. But in any case, rules must apply to everyone, or they are not respectable at all.

A lot fewer government employees... then who the few remaining donate money to will be irrelevant.

YES and their should be a limit on the number of government employees TOO!

Do they pay taxes? Do their kids go off to war?

Here in California our governor just signed a law allowing incarcerated felons to vote. Haha!

With around half the people in this country on the teet, I think we have bigger fish to fry...

The government's bought. It's too late, folks...

It should not be necessary to restrict this. Our Constitution was intended to protect us against against the government. The problem is they pay no attention to the Constitution anymore.

Then the solution is that government employees not be required to pay taxes on their salaries, but they give up the right to say what their salaries should be, i.e. no vote in whatever jurisdiction that pays their salaries. If given the choice of pay taxes or vote, 99% would probably give up the vote.

It is pretty obvious that there was coercion involved. However, It would be unconstitutional to prohibit donations to your favorite candidate or party. Instead, with a bit more effort, track down the party who is doing the coercion and penalize them.

Anyone whose employment is sucking at the national nipple............should not be allowed to contribute to any national election

There are conflict of interest rules that should prevent the kind of shenanigans we saw with FBI Director Comey, but there's no trust that anyone will enforce the rules, as we've seen. I'm more in favor of complete transparency: anyone who donates any amount to a candidate will have to expect their name will be subject to public disclosure. That way it doesn't matter how much money someone contributes, as they won't be able to hide. With that condition, we have to outlaw PACs, which are another way influence can be hidden.

There should be absolutely no limitation on the amount of money any person can give to a political candidate, party, or cause. This is a freedom of speech issue.
To make the argument that you would prefer government employees to not be able to make as much of a difference in election because they will vote for government is really exactly the same as people who oppose in the citizens United decision because it allows corporations to have more influence over government.
The only way to fix the conflict of interest, while still respecting human rights, is to eliminate government employees

yes it should be ZERO.

I see this as a problem easily solved, at least if constitutional change is easy.

What you do is still let everyone vote -- but any measure that would increase taxation or spending would require both a majority of all voters and a majority of net tax payers. (Which would require the voting rolls to show who is one.)

should have the right to do as they wish with their money.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that donations can have NO LIMITS! I do know a way around this that eliminates corruption. You can donate all you want in maximum amounts of $100. mrpresident2016.com

So, the "you" have some Constitutional Right to ban government (sic Federal Government) employees from voting because the "you" have determined there exists an "inherent bias to vote for more government as a product of self-interest." I would ask you to provide your scientific proof of that statement but will not since I already know you do not have any. If a person, be that person a someone who works for private industry or government (local, state, federal) can be either one of two types: A member of a herd; or, an individual who does not follow the herd. A herd member is a person who is one who will follow the will of the herd even if the individual does not desire or believe in what the herd wants to do. A non-herd member is an individual who will do their own bidding regardless of any pressure from any herd they are associated with. So... once someone begins to restrict "one group" of people from voting, and restricting "one group" of people from "donating" ... then who's next on the chopping block and where does it end? And, who are the people who decide who cannot vote? And, it is OK to restrict people from their Constitutional rights... as long as it is not you... correct?

Government employees should be allowed to donate unlimited amounts of money to Libertarian Party candidates. It's their right! :-)

To do it fairly, you would have to not allow anyone who received most of their money from gov't grants, military contracts, gov't assistance, military or peace corp service, or any federal agency. It would be a question whether to count Social Security and Medicare benefits as income.
You'd have to look at how much of people's primary clients' or employers' revenue comes from gov't contract to do the calculation. Few people would be able to vote.

Despite that and the despite the inherent problems, I love the spirit of it. I don't love denying people the right to vote. But our current system seems inherently flawed because if even 20% of my earnings come from companies funded by grants, I have a strong incentive to ask my congressman to keep that money flowing. If the cut the program, maybe it would save every taxpayer 1 cent. They won't lobby for their 1 cent. I might grudgingly lobby to keep the grant, though. After all, I send them those quarterly estimates, and I want some of that money back. I can't unilaterally disarm. That's so wrong. It will cause the country to go bankrupt.

I don't think a voting formula is part of the answer, but I'm open to radical suggestions to cut gov't.

There is no quandary. If you work for government, you have proven beyond doubt that you can't be trusted. Anyone who gets support from government should not be allowed to vote. Neither should anyone vote or run for office who can't pass a civics test including understanding the importance of individual liberty and every one of the Bill of Rights. (No need for term limits when blood sucking looters can't run for re-election.)
That would leave less than 1 million voters and eliminate 99% of the current looters from running for office.