Panelists answered the following: Should campaign contributions carry any limits or should they be considered a form of free speech and, therefore, be limitless?
Nants Foley: “Campaign contributions should have no limits as long as donors are identified.”
Mary Zanger: “Limitless campaign contributions may be speech but they are not free. They are very closely which makes them affordable by only the wealthy. This type of speech would be class divisive as the candidates supported by the wealthy would be against Social Security, Medicare, affordable healthcare, jobs, public schools and all issues supporting the common good. The most fair and democratic elections must be financially limited and/or publicly financed.”
Jim West: “No. There is no limit on how much I can talk. Why should there be a limit on how much I can spend? You say unlimited money buys elections – laws controlling the amount of money spent on Campaigns are effective – I don’t subscribe to either of those arguments.”
Richard Place: “The unions want it one way. They give as much as they want but try to restrict private money from donating. There’s no difference between the unions and private donations. They both want to influence government for their own gains. The answer is convict more elected officials for conflict of interest charges.”
Ruth Erickson: “There should be a limit to the amount that can be contributed to political campaigns. The people who can make large donations to help elect politicians can also buy influence over the decisions of those politicians. Politicos who can raise the most money are not necessarily the best people to be good politicians.
Marty Richman: “No. There should be no limits on campaign contributions primarily because donations are a means of expression. If I want to give every last penny I have to a candidate or cause I believe in, that’s my business. Besides we have seen limits do not work. We should try another approach – educating the American people to look behind the ads and banners, slogans and signs and truly understand the issues and the real character of the people they are supporting. There would be the added benefit that they would be less likely to be wooed by slick ads for anything from testosterone, to lawyers, to dietary supplements.”
