WHAT OTHERS SAY: Limits lifted on campaign contributions serve only the rich

Tuesday, April 8, 2014 | 10:53 a.m. CDT

Editorial cartoonists have sharpened and turned their disgust and creativity against the U.S. Supreme Court after justices ruled that free speech can be bought when it comes to limits on contributions for political campaigns.

We've seen cartoonists draw the Monopoly brothers, Mr. Magoo, a megaphone of rolled up money — the list goes on and on.

Now we know why candidates crow after bringing in the most campaign contributions each month.

The more conservative members ruled in a 5-4 decision last week that decades-old limits on the amounts any individual can contribute to federal candidates in a two-year election cycle is no more.

In this day of concentrated wealth, a very small group of Americans literally hold the power to dictate who is writing laws in Washington. Then that same group holds the power of alpha and omega, how long they will serve and who they will serve or whether their time in power ends.

If you're wondering about the foundation for this ruling, be warned that the lawsuit was brought by a national political party.

And also take note that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote "The government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse."

No, he doesn't see that the need to make all Americans equal in the electoral process is an acceptable interest for the government.

So much for the old fairy tale that each American is equal in the voting booth.

Copyright Harrison (Ark.) Daily Times. Distributed by the Associated Press.

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


John Schultz April 8, 2014 | 11:44 a.m.

What a ridiculous argument. I don't have $2600 to donate to a federal candidate, so should campaign contributions be reduced to say $25 so (almost) everyone can afford to max out their contributions to a federal candidate? Money doesn't win elections, wooing voters does.

(Report Comment)
Tony Black April 9, 2014 | 11:10 a.m.

Are you serious? Money doesn't win elections? Do you live under a rock? How do you "woo" voters without money? If money doesn't buy elections, why do people spend millions on a specific candidate? Jeez.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.