Supreme Court on Giving. Fraud Audit: FREE FALL OR FREE SPEECH?
By Candace Hardin
Clash Daily Contributor
The Supreme Court has removed the overall total financial cap a donor can make to all political candidates or party.
It did retain the donation limit for individuals giving to a single candidate, but should the donor choose to give to many candidates or PACs, there is no limit to the amounts that can be given.
Has this ruling put elections up for sale?
Is it just another form of consumerism, or is it an expression of free speech?
In the light of the recent audit that has shown there is basis to suspect voter fraud, the Supreme Court ruling adds insult to injury.
The integrity of our electoral system is being called into question.
This ruling is an affront to every service person from the Continental Militia to today’s modern military. The privilege of voting is a sacred trust between the people and the candidates.
If the electoral process is reduced to a simple transaction to be bought and sold, liberty is lost and cannot be regained. If fraud is allowed to continue in the face of denial, it is no better.
Critics of the recent audit would argue that the occurrence of fraud was an extremely small percentage of the overall vote. Any proof of fraud in an election is intolerable.
The audit was conducted only in the state of North Carolina. That leaves 49 other states with a possible chance of fraud. Audits have not been conducted in the other 49 states to date.
There should be a ceiling on donations to any and all candidates. The field can never be level unless the flow of money is regulated. A total monetary limit should be set for all elections.
The candidate can spend the money on his or her campaign as they choose, but an overall monetary limit would force the candidate to get creative to get his or her point across.
The election should be based on the candidate’s substance, not financial clout. Until the rules are made consistent for all, elections will continue to be bought and sold. The Supreme Court ruling is only window dressing on an already cancerous condition.
The other point against extreme donations is that if someone contributes a few million to a campaign, what would the candidate owe the donor?
This is the root of the problem we have with our elected officials. They arrive on the Beltway already obligated to the people who wrote enormous checks to their campaign.
An objective vote is impossible to obtain if too many favors are already an obligation.
An elected official should only be beholden to the constituency that they represent and no one else.
Until the public demands a countrywide audit for fraud and campaign limits nothing will ever change, the current situation will only worsen.
Image: Courtesy of: http://sunshinereflections.wordpress.com/2012/11/
Candace Hardin resides in Atlanta, Georgia. She fluent in Spanish and a student of Latin and history. She is a columnist on PolitiChicks.tv. and has a blog, kandisays.blogspot.com. Originally from North Carolina, her writing and beliefs have been heavily influenced by the Appalachian culture and tradition.
