I just got through reading the outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision on campaign reform. They lifted the limit on maximum contributions of an individual contribution from $123,200 to $3.6 million.

I wonder where they are living.

We presently have antiquated rules for campaign financing. We have seen Allen West lose his election in Florida, because the DNC gave $2 million to his opponent. We have seen the Tea Party nearly beat Sen. Harry Reid in Nevada. We do have a limit that an individual can contribute to a candidate, but I do not think that unions and corporations should be allowed to contribute, because they dilute the individual vote. An individual should only be allowed to contribute to candidates on his ballot. (A person in one state should not be allowed to contribute to some one in another state, or area.) I’m sure that the DNC and the RNC would challenge my reform, which places the burden for the election only on the citizen voter (as it should be). There shouldn’t be an influx of cash from outside an area determining the outcome of an election. I see this as the biggest problem in campaign financing.

Obviously the Supreme Court doesn’t agree.

Don Crook

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.