SC Decision Solution Number 29,316

[ThomWV]

Prepared to see this one shot down in a heartbeat too.

Fairness is everything. Why not a Federal law restricting total federal campaign contributions by any person, living or corporate, to some small amojnt, say $1,000, in total for all advocacy in any one calandar year. Then enforce it like it was child support money. We spend far too much as it is on our election and political process, so a serious but equally applied restriction might have other good effects too.

[HillbillyBob]

1. No, No campaign bribes at all

Public Funding. period.

[Orsino]

2. Well, public funding would completely contradict the recent ruling...

...while a blanket restriction preserves the beloved equation of money with speech.

While I'd prefer the former, too, the latter--suitably ironclad--is nearly as satisfactory.

[ThomWV]

3. My only objection to that one is this - are tax cheats eligible to vote?

Public funding means tax funding. I'm OK with that but I am much concerned that the inequities that exist in the tax system might find a way to migrate to the electioneering system. Anytime there is connect there is a means to migrate.