Campaign contributions simply legalized bribery

Published 1:05 am Wednesday, May 13, 2009

By Staff
The legal definition of bribery is:
"The crime of giving or taking money or some other valuable item in order to influence a public official in the performance of his/her duties." See Law.com.
What am I getting at?
Campaign contributions are nothing more than a type of legalized bribery.
An elected official who changes his vote for money, "a contribution," is being bribed.
Money given to a candidate often is for the purpose of influencing him or her to vote the way the contributor wants.
Many candidates kowtow to groups which will give them money.
To be elected one needs campaign funds.
Even congressional candidates must raise millions to support their campaign budgets.
No wonder our elected officials must pander to special interests and others in order to pay for the cost of their campaigns.
The result: Statesmanship is laid aside if a public official succumbs to the demands of those who provide him with the funds to be elected.
I believe our public officials do their best to carry out their oaths of office.
On the other hand, if attaining that office is dependent on election, a public official naturally tends to cater to the wishes of those who are paying for his or her election.
Voters understand that an official obeys the hand that feeds him or her.
We understand that our politicians are obliged to do what gets them elected rather than what is best for our government and our country.
We tend to hold our elected officials in contempt because of this understanding.
To avoid what amounts to bowing to special interests and power groups changing the course of government, we must stop the influence of the huge amount of money needed to pay for campaigns.
We should spread the cost of electing our officials across all of us.
Every candidate has to obtain signatures to appear on the ballot.
These requirements may need to be made more stringent.
Once a candidate qualifies for the ballot, he should have all of his campaign costs paid by an allotment paid by all of us: by the government.
Only public funds should be used to support a candidacy.
Funds should be dispensed to all candidates in equal amounts.
Candidates should be elected on what they say and do, not by the greatest amount of expenditure.
Buying of elections must cease.
Only then could we have campaigns based on principle, not based on who can raise and spend the most money.
Will these restrictions violate the First Amendment to the Constitution – freedom of speech and the press? I feel not.
Our present system does not bring disastrous results as fast as crying "Fire!" in a theater, but the consequences are every bit as pernicious.
If the courts should hold me wrong, an amendment to the Constitution could fix the problem.