Home > Politics, News & Issues > US Politics > US Elections
Should there be limits on contributions to political campaigns by individuals?
Results so far:
| Yes | 74% | 90 votes | Total: 122 votes | |
| No | 26% | 32 votes |
Yes
by Zach Bigalke
Created on: May 28, 2007 Last Updated: March 19, 2008
The argument that fiduciary contributions to political campaigns is a form of free speech is mere bluster. The beauty of elections is that each American - poor, middle-class and rich alike - has an equal say in who will represent the complete constituency. The ability to give more money to a candidate than another person might give simply because one has more money creates an inequality. The fact that money has become a greater indicator of who wins elections than the character and policies of the candidates in question is indicative of the greater trend that corporate interests have had on our political landscape.
It is entirely feasible that, if no limits were placed on individual donations, a wealthy contributor who owns a large multinational corporation would come to expect results favorable for that corporation once their investment achieves election victory. Politicians, already found to be increasingly willing to pander to lobbyist dollars, would veer further away from being representatives of the people and closer to being merely corporate voices. Our nation is already being carved up and sold off to corporate interests; we cannot allow our legislators' votes to be bought and sold.
The freedom of expression in an election is provided equally for every American in the ballot box. The ability to hand over money to achieve personal gains is not freedom of speech; rather, it is the denial of "speech" to a section of the population in exchange for ever-increasing power of "speech" for another. Limits are in place so that no one individual can effectively buy our legislature. And loosening the limits will only loosen the already tenuous hold the average American has on those who are supposed to represent their interests.
Learn more about this author, Zach Bigalke.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
by Jeffrey Ober
Created on: November 16, 2009
The First Amendment to the US Constitution clearly states that Congress shall not make any law that abridges freedom of speech. And, of course, the only way to limit contributions by individuals would be to make a law.
Protections of the freedom of speech were put in place specifically to protect freedom of political speech. In today's economy and political climate, one of the ways that people use to express their political speech is to make donations to candidates with whom they agree. This is a basic freedom and to place limits on this power of people to be involved in politics would be quite disastrous to the country and the entire concept of the Republic.
Some who support limits on contributions would say that allowing individuals to give unlimited amounts of money would unduly influence elections. However, giving money to an individual is not the same as voting. A different set of people will be doing the actual voting, not the people who give money.
The only logical piece of unlimited donations should be an immediate disclosure of all donations. Each and every donation by an individual to any campaign should be reported within 24 hours and listed on-line in a public format. With that in place, any voter can see who is contributing to specific candidates and can make a decision to vote based on that information.
When limits are in place, this just causes individual candidates and parties to find ways around those limitations. For example, today a person can donate an unlimited amount of funds to a political action committee (PAC) or to a political party, and that party or PAC can then spend that money to support the candidate. This has the effect of the actual donors being hidden from the public view and also allows the candidate to receive support from donors without being associated with that donor.
Some who support limits on political donations also claim that the donations are in effect bribes. A donor might give a candidate some cash in exchange for the candidate voting a certain way on a law. Of course, there is no way to know if the candidate was already going to vote that way - but in addition, if there is open and immediate disclosure of all contributions, voters would have the ability to see the donation and the associated vote; and would be able to vote against that candidate in the next election, if desired.
In a country based on freedom, people should be absolutely free to use any money they have rightfully earned to support any candidate in any way they desire. To put any limits on expenditures or donations of individuals is an affront to freedom.
Learn more about this author, Jeffrey Ober.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills
Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all
INFORMATION
Copyright © 2002-2012 Helium, Inc. All rights reserved.
Helium.com: A Service of RR Donnelley