Somehow I don’t associate campaign contributions with “free speech,” or at least I do not equate the two. I would not donate to any candidate without expectation of a favor in return, namely that he/she acts and votes for legislation in accord with my personal convictions. The vote is the ultimate “campaign contribution.” Do we need to pay them to uphold and defend the Constitution? Let the candidates speak all they want to at no charge. I do not see much integrity inherent in receiving huge sums of ideological money. It reeks of bribery, not free speech.
The “charge” for speech comes from the media that the politicians need to hire to make their speech heard. We’ve had a lot of good contenders who really were simply never able to afford enough publicity. And one of the reasons is that people were afraid to donate to them for fear of exceeding these “limits.”
Well, let’s say GOP donors were afraid. The Dems were never worried, since most of their donations come under the table or through various backchannels anyway and are never accounted for. That still won’t change, but at least now there’s a possibility for more money to flow into GOP or conservative campaigns.
It pretty much is bribery - but it seems most people miss the real problem. As long as the government is going to legislate in all areas of life, people and organizations are going to have incentive to try and influence that legislation, through a variety of means (including contributions/bribes). If the government were to fit within their constitutionally prescribed role, this problem would be highly reduced - the incentive to contribute would no longer exist.
This is a great decision. It helps fight the biggest campaign contributors of all...the labor unions.
Grow up. Campaigns cost money. Those of us who really care contribute to the candidates who we support. It is a violation of my rights to limit how much I can send to any candidate.
“Somehow I don’t associate campaign contributions with “free speech,” or at least I do not equate the two. I would not donate to any candidate without expectation of a favor in return, namely that he/she acts and votes for legislation in accord with my personal convictions. The vote is the ultimate “campaign contribution.” Do we need to pay them to uphold and defend the Constitution? Let the candidates speak all they want to at no charge. I do not see much integrity inherent in receiving huge sums of ideological money. It reeks of bribery, not free speech.”
Fester I agree with you on this. I don’t see how putting more money into the political system that mostly goes to a handful of big media companies benefits our liberty or Constitution. Money in politics has always been a pathway to corruption. When a handful of people can control our legislators with their pocket change, I don’t see how that benefits most of us.
Unlimited money going to keep entrenched politicians in power benefits the status quo not liberty and freedom, for most. I will make a wager (hoping that I’m wrong) that someday, the oligarchs will conclude that allowing an armed public in America doesn’t benefit them, and this now gives a handful of people more ability to purchase gun control, open borders, or any other policy change. Many have already stated this.
Free speech should equal one vote and all the physical effort you wish to donate towards your candidate, is my view of how free speech should work. Keep big money out of our politics and elections. Big money going to politics equals crooked government like bailouts to Wall St and money to Solyndra, etc.