Money talks, apparently 

The Supreme Court has just ruled that there should be no limit to the amount of campaign funds one may contribute. That sounds pretty innocuous until you consider that those with more will be able to contribute more, freely, without reservations. And how do you think the politicians will react? Of course, the more you contribute the more you can affect the discussion, that political discourse.

It’s amazing that the court voted along ideological lines in their 5-4 vote. It just furthers their argument that corporations are people—remember Citizens United? Money does talk, and those with the most get the most attention. Those with the most needs—usually the ones at the bottom of the “totem pole”—will naturally get the least attention.

It’s amazing to me that more people aren’t up in arms about these decisions. They are destroying our way of life. Remember One Man, One Vote? That vote will hardly count if you cannot reach your elected official. And how can you expect to reach him/her if you can only contribute $5 or $10? Don’t you think the guy who can contribute $1 million or $10 million will get the lion’s share of attention? This decision goes hand in hand with redistricting. I mean, take a look at some of the boundaries drawn up for the congressional districts. They are, in a word, amazing! They have a way of ensuring that the constituents are of the same party as the member of Congress who resides there.

Now add to that the unlimited campaign funds contribution and you have a recipe for assuring a permanent class! Something really needs to be done about this. I am proposing a universal $100 maximum contribution per election per entity, human or otherwise! Ready to sign-up for practical solutions to impractical decisions?!

-- George Robertson - Morro Bay