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.