Would banning non-individual contributions to political parties improve America?

[QuantumPion]

As long as every person has the same amount of political influence I am OK with it.

Everyone gets exactly one vote regardless of how rich or poor they are.

If money donations are considered "free speech", then the people who do not have the money to make the donations are being deprived of their free speech rights year after year after year.

How does a person or organization giving money to a candidate deprive me of my free speech? I don't understand that at all. That's like saying a rich person flying around in a leer jet deprives me of the freedom to travel.

 

[Fern]

Would banning non-individual contributions to political parties improve America?

I think your question is faulty.

I could be wrong but I don't think "non-individuals" can contribute to political parties.

IIRC, and understand correctly, corporations etc can contribute 'soft money' in elections. Soft money can NOT be contributed to a party nor a candidate.

If so the OP's entire premise is incorrect.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Don't like item 3

Why not? Of all the ways public funding of politics is achieved here in Canada, it seems the fairest. There are legitimate concerns that the incumbents stand to gain from it almost exclusively, but even there we've got some decent rules in place to let up-and-coming parties get a piece of that.

Why not?

Because you have a parliamentary form of govt.

We don't so it would be inappropriate here. We don't elect parties.

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

No, we don't need any such amendment, because how you choose to spend your money and what causes you want to support IS free speech. Without that freedom you effectively don't have any free speech. Why would anyone so narrowly define free speech as to not include how you spend your money to support a cause?

If I spend money to print flyers and picketing signs to support some protest, is that free speech? What about if I want to buy airtime to make sure the public hears about an important issue? If that's not considered free speech, then essentially whoever controls the media controls the country.

I understand your concern, but I disagree with your conclusion. Your argument could just as easily be used to justify bribery or extortion. As a democracy, we have not only the right. but the obligation to restrict activities that cause significant harm. The status quo of legalized bribery, a/k/a money is free speech, has greatly corrupted our government and denied all Americans their right to equal representation. It is time to end it by further restricting money in politics.

Uh, again, no. Should the government not need a warrant to bust into a business and rifle through their documents (4th amendment)? You want to pick and choose which rights apply and which ones don't?

It all sounds nice in theory, but in reality what you're suggesting is not workable without sacrificing basic freedoms.

That's a red herring. Such specific protections for organizations can easily be granted through legislation. They do not need to be carved into the Constitution.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Everyone gets exactly one vote regardless of how rich or poor they are.



How does a person or organization giving money to a candidate deprive me of my free speech? I don't understand that at all. That's like saying a rich person flying around in a leer jet deprives me of the freedom to travel.

Please do not be so intentionally obtuse.