In response to:

Enhancing Democracy by Banning Speech

Borderbill2 Wrote: Mar 11, 2010 1:48 PM
"The law must read: A candidate can only accept donations from a qualified voter, registered to vote for that candidate."

Gee, this sounds a lot like the Jim Crow laws of the post Civil War South, that limited the vote to land owning, literate members of the estabilished gentry.

Any citizen or group of citizens of the United States should be able to donate or run political ads for or against any party or candidate regardless of their affiliation or registration. If I want to comment on your local politicians, why should my opinion as a citizen of the United States be invalid. In local elections, the local electorate has the right to determine whether or not my opinion should change how they think about their candidate. ...

Imagine how life will be now that giant corporations may spend as much as they want on political campaigns, as the Supreme Court recently decreed. All they will have to do to get their way is ask members of Congress: Do you want our money helping you -- or your opponent? Given the sums available to Big Business, most politicians will be desperate to please.

So you might think. But consider a state where corporations are already allowed to spend as much as they want on elections: Illinois. Here, companies have established beyond doubt that this prerogative, when combined...

Friday, June 01 | 07:17 AM ET
Friday, June 01 | 07:17 AM ET
Friday, June 01 | 07:17 AM ET
Friday, June 01 | 07:17 AM ET