Money, Politics, and The Pope

http://andrewjacksondem.com

The North Carolina State Board of Election's recent decision finding the activities of Raleigh businessman Arthur Pope did not violate election law does not reflect the forward thinking that distinguishes the Tar Heel state from its southern neighbors. By allowing Pope to tansfer money ($660,000) from his retail business and fund political expenditures to candidates of his persuasion, the NC Board of Elections is agreeing with the precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Buckley v. Valeo, which allows money to be equated to speech.

The money I make as an educator does not compare to Mr. Pope's deep pockets and abundant bank accounts. I have no annimosity towards Pope and his wealth. He has been successful and should be rewarded for his hard work. However, when money is allowed to be protected under the First Amendment as speech, a basic fundamental of American Democracy is violated.

The First Amendment allows us the protection to speak freely without fear of government reprisal. This right is given to every American, rich and poor. When money is factored into this equation, a rich person's speech is louder and more constant than that of a poor person. If this takes place for long amounts of time, government becomes corrupted by an aristocracy that cares only about issues concerning the wealthiest of Americans.

The United States Congress and state legislatures across the country need to deal with campaign finance law and level the playing field to allow more people to participate in the political process. In the coming weeks, this author will be detailing an idea for publicly funded state legislative campaigns in the Old North State. I am becoming more convinced that publicly funded elections is the only course for returning democratic principles to our government.

Comments

I've become convinced as well

Public funding for elections is the only way I can see to level the playing field. But it won't do the job completely. We still have a legislature that 'regular' people with 'regular' jobs can't afford to serve in.

I've recently been thinking that a smaller, full-time legislature where members make enough money to live on, would be a good idea. That way, people who aren't rich or retired could actually run for office and serve without crushing their families under the burden of no income.

In any case, you've laid out a good argument and I look forward to reading more.

Recommended to the front page!

Yes. Public elections funding.

Let's put the democracy in "Democrat". We might have to surgically implant it in "Republican". ;)

"They took all the trees and put them in a tree museum Then they charged the people a dollar 'n a half just to see 'em. Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone? They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."