I am writing a persuasive essay on campaign finances, and I figured this was the place to hear all sides of an issue. I am totally against soft money donations to political campaigns. I feel they are the equivalent of bribary and need to be stopped. I do not have a problem with private citizens giving $50 to the guy they identify with who is running for office, it is when the companies, unions and other organizations buy votes and influence. Why should soft money continue?
bilehunt brought this one up a couple of weeks ago too. I don’t think the discussion ever really got off the ground, because it was hard to find people who said “Yes, I like big money contributors having undue influence over American politics.”
Anyway
Amazingrace, as part of your research, check out George Will’s opinions.
Here is a relevant one: Free to be Politically Intense - Mar 16, 2000
The short argument against campaign finance reform is that it violates freedom of speech. Applying ones resources towards the expression of ones political views is as fundamental a right as there is in the U.S.
Now, to your original post, I don’t think you have your terminology correct. Soft money is money that is given to a non-individual, i.e. a political party. You imply that it is money given by a corporation.
However, why do you have a problem with corporations expressing political views? Corporations are just groups of people with a common interest. Are you opposed to other groups of people making campaign donations? Such as a family? Or a church? Or a charity?
Ah, but one can express political views without specifically endorsing a candidate. For example, religious organizations are held to this sort of thing (if they want to keep their tax exemption, that is). They can preach against abortion and homosexuality and the like, but if they say, “Vote for W because he will get rid of those” or “Vote against Gore because he is for those,” they have gone over the line.
Absolutely not, as long as they express their political views legally. You are quite correct, everyone has a right to expend their own personal resources for a candidate of their choice.
Having said that, the FECA places limits on how much money each person, corporation, or political action committee may spend.
An individual is limited to donations of $1,000 to a candidate or candidate committee per primary or general election, $20,000 dollars to a national party per year, and $5,000 to any other political committee per year, so long as the total expenditure is not equal to more than $25,000.
Political Action Committees are limited to spending $5,000 on any one candidate, $15,000 on any national party, or $5,000 to any other political committee. However, their donations per year have no maximum, allowing them, for example, to donate $5,000 to as many candidates as they would like.
In theory, these limitations help prevent large groups (such as corporations, churches, labor unions, and the like) from donating so much money, that only their opinions are heard by the candidate.
From the George Will article posted by bilehunt:
“no one believes citizens can or should be equal in the political realm. Some have better ideas, are more persuasive or more respected”
. . . So let’s give them more than one vote, or only count the rest of you as 3/5 of a whole vote.
Are you really taking political advice from someone who doesn’t think people should be equal in the political realm? Well of course he’s going to oppose campaign finance reform. . . wouldn’t want all those shudder regular common workers influencing elections.
Hmm… i bet the campaign finance reform will end us up with a 1 party system. (of course we basically have that now)
Why do you believe that?
Sorry I haven’t replied to you all for awhile.
Sorry for the term mix up. I did not mean soft money the way I described it.
It is not the expression of political views I am against. If a company throws their support to one party/candidate or another, it is their right to do so. It is the giving of donations to a party or candidate in the hope influence will be gained. If the companies, special interest groups, or unions give so much money to a candidate that he/she will change their view on an issue, I feel that is wrong and interferes with the interests of the citizens of the country.
So Bill Gates opinion is just as useful as a blue collar union worker’s? I do not think so. Bill Gates and the company that he owns a major steak in have so much money because they redefined the way that we worked on computers by improving and mass marketing the GUI (Shut up you MacOS weenies, Zerox did it first but did not do anything to make it big) and now integrating our own desktops within our own organizations and with the world (integrated web browser). Companies this sucessful deserve more of a voice in politics than less successful companies like IBM, Sun, or other unsuccesful firms. The most effecient companies are the biggest and have the largest voice in an unrestricted system of political contributions.
P.S. Those who claim that money is the only thing that matters in a campaign must then they should have no doubt that the richest candate for the 2000 elections will sweep to victory in the poles, or at least he would have if he had not droped out (Forbes).
You know, doing what is right is easy. The problem is knowing what is right.
–Lyndon B. Johnson
I was reading back through my thread after rather than prior to posting, sorry about that <i>steak/stake<i> screw up. I hope that my errors are limited to that.
Well, first point to clarify, national elections are not supposed to be slugging matches between successful corporations.
Secondly, the type of government you seem to be advocating, where Bill Gates political opinion is more valid than that of Joe Lunchpail is a Plutocracy. Why should I care what Bill Gates thinks about abortion? Why should Microsoft’s stance on gun control matter to anyone? We live in a Democracy.
Thirdly, Forbes was prevented of using all of his money on his campaign because of the aforementioned Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974. Put it this way, without restrictions on how money is spent in political campaigns, if he wanted to Steve Forbes could say “Vote for me and I’ll give each and every one of you $100.” While I still wouldn’t vote for him there are plenty of people who would.
Finally, I thought I should mention this one too:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed”
threemae:
**So Bill Gates opinion is just as useful as a blue collar union worker’s? I do not think so. **
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure what you mean by useful. But, Bill Gates’ influence on the government shouldn’t be any greater than any other citizen’s.
billehunt:
I have a problem with corporations expressing political views.
Why should we allow them rights reserved for citizens?
Corporations are not citizens. They are not even people. They deserve no rights.
Peace
It should be pointed out that many corporations and other large interests will give money to both major candidates in an election.
That just means they support a good, fair election, right?
Dr. J
“Seriously, baby, I can prescribe anything I want!” -Dr. Nick Riviera
Legally, corporations are citizens. The reason for this is to apply things like the 4th ammendment guarantee against illegal search and seizure, the 8th ammendment protection from excess bail and fines, etc.
I don’t think corporations deserve any special protection under the law that would be unavailable to your average citizen, however I have little problem with granting them the same rights as you and me.