« Restrictions on Campaign Contributions- A Good Thing? Becker | Main | Notice »

04/08/2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

David Dornbusch

Since the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people and have the same free speech rights we all have, wouldn’t it make sense for corporations to also have the right to vote?

The history of our voting rights laws has been of greater inclusion, not exclusion. In 1790, only white male adult property-owners had the right to vote. In 1870, former slaves got the right to vote. Women got the right in 1920 and Native Americans in 1924. And in 1971, the 26th amendment set the minimum voting age at 18.

I wonder whether the five justices on the Supreme Court who approved Citizens United would agree.

Some might protest that it’s so cheap and easy to incorporate, corporations would quickly dominate elections. Cheap? It costs $100 to incorporate in California. That would be $1,000,000 for just 10,000 votes. Hard to imagine anyone or group spending that kind of money just to buy an election. And, besides they'd have to wait 18 years before their corporation was old enough.

pbr

When logic and common sense prevails, elections can be fair even with unlimited contributions; unlimited contributions need not be unlimited spending on elections.

After all, no one is telling Congress what the taxes they pay must be spent for, nor is government telling faith based initiatives what each dollar should be spent for. Once submitted, taxes become fungible, and there is good argument to suggest that campaign donations are too.

The problem is that there is no election bank into which funds are deposited, or withdrawn, so the funs can be tracked, and used exclusively for campaigns.

Loose cash invites corruption as well as temptation!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Become a Fan

May 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31