So limiting money is dangerous?
I'd argue NOT limiting money is dangerous.
Exhibit A ... One and a half political parties ruled by money.
Money is not speech, there is no danger in extricating it from politics, the danger lies if we fail to.
It has long seemed to me that anyone should be able to contribute whatever they want to any campaign, but all candidates on the ballot should get public funds matching the private funds received by their most well-funded opponent. That way, no one's money/voice is being stifled, but neither can anyone dominate the conversation just because they are rich.
No one would need to make the dangerous argument that there is a limit to how much money someone should be allowed to contribute, because most people will not contribute if they know that by doing so they are allowing their opponents to get an equal amount of money. (Of course, anyone contributing to a campaign because they really want all sides' views to receive a fair hearing will continue to do so, but that's not why most people contribute, now, is it?)
In Print This Week:
Oct 16, 2014
vol XXV issue 42
The North Coast Journal Weekly
Website powered by Foundation