In this week’s Around the Water Cooler, panelists answer the question: Would you support a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling that bans government from limiting independent political spending by corporations and unions?
Julie Morris: “Yes. I do not think it serves a democracy well to have the wealthiest citizens determining who runs for – and ultimately wins – public office. We need to work harder to make elections fair and transparent.”
Marty Richman: “No. I believe every entity regulated by government should be allowed to influence elections; however, I would support an amendment to bar lobbying by everyone, especially lobbying by government.”
Steve Staloch: “Yes. The Supreme Court’s ruling that the First Amendment protects corporations and unions the same as individuals with regard to the ability to spend money to influence elections was the death knell for any hope of true election reform so vital to safeguarding democracy. The influence this decision bestowed on major defense contractors, health care providers, unions and pharmaceutical companies dramatically dilutes the sanctity and weight of “one person, one vote.”
Ruth Erickson: “If some of the big-spending corporations and unions would donate some of that money to do some good, they would earn more respect from the general public and those in need. Whether a corporation, union or individual gives an exorbitant amount of money for political purposes, even if they have not had contact with the politician or political action group, it could appear that either side might influence the other. There should be a limit on political spending by all, so there is no appearance of impropriety of political favoritism, influence or inducement.”
Jim West: “Hay, it says “we the PEOPLE” not we the MONEY!”
Richard Place: “No, I would not support an amendment like that. There would be no control of the unions and they would be left the dominant financial political power. You would have the same problem that California has now where the Democratic Party has been taken over by the unions. The end result would be a socialist nation that would answer to only the financial desires of its membership and not on the productivity of the nation.”
