What if only registered voters were allowed to make political campaign contributions?

That violates the clause in our Constitution that protects speech, especially political speech. There are non-speech acts which have been interpreted as permitted communication; political giving is one of them.

@robmandu Then a law would be passed allowing corporations to become registered voters.

I like the idea on the face of it.

I don’t think that your proposed law would do a thing about the “soft money” contributions that the ruling was primarily about. There are already laws on the books (I believe; I don’t study this) that prevent corporations from funding individual political campaigns. (That would be graft, and it has been clearly outlawed for a very long time; it won’t be made legal under any stretch of current laws or political thinking.)

As it is, even individual real human beings are enjoined from making very large contributions to individual campaigns—something like $2500 per person, I think. (I wouldn’t mind being corrected on that if my recollection is wrong.) And that doesn’t include self-funded campaigns, such as Michael Bloomberg (Mayor of New York City) and others who in the past have funded their own campaigns for public office.

Voting with our wallets is the most influential aspect of politics in our country always has been and I doubt it would ever go away. Campaign contributions is a way to put your money where your mouth is and the best way to get the attention of your leaders.

@Cruiser – The problem with that, especially now that corporations have the same rights as individuals, is that more big-business money is made available to candidates than can be mustered by private citizens, and so the corporations end up with considerably more influence over the whole electoral process. There needs to be some way to even the playing field for all candidates.

@Rufus_T_Firefly What you are referring to allows corporations to execute ad campaigns in support of or against a candidate or incumbent as they see fit and less to do about money going directly to candidates as that part is still regulated. It’s all about freedom of speech and like the anti Obama billboards down in Georgia and corporations and entities that support Obama have the same right to convey their message if they feel the need. That’s a pretty even playing field in my book.

@Cruiser – I’m sorry, I misspoke, I should have said, “There needs to be some way to even the playing field between the citizen’s abilities to influence politics and those of corporate entities.” Corporations have been buying influence for years thanks to, in most cases, nearly bottomless coffers. Likewise, the politicians have been peddling their loyalties to the highest bidder. It’s the little guy, the citizens, who could use a level playing field right about now.

I DO understand the legalities involved and support free speech, but when was the last time you were able to hire your own lobbyist to promote your own interests? The field seems pretty tilted when our representatives are more worried about the assurance of corporate backing and their own re-election than in doing the right things. Allowing corporations to bankroll an ad campaign under the guise of free speech could simply become another way for corporations to silently back a favored candidate by pouring as much money as they like into whichever issues or legislation they choose without having to call it a campaign contribution. And they’ll get away with it too, just as long as their campaign supports issues and a platform similar to the candidate they’re backing. and that’s assuming that they haven’t already bought and paid for that particular candidate to begin with.

Granted, there ARE limits to how much a corporation can contribute to any one candidate, but it isn’t so much the about the scalable contributions they’re allowed to make, as it is the ability to afford an army of lobbyists to help spread their influence even further. Corporations are providing much of the language and helping draft legislation which all but guarantees their profits will increase and that the politician’s pocket remain well-lined with cash.

Because of the vast amounts of cash being used, the ability of corporations to easily afford and purchase full page ads promoting one’s own interests is more apt to be a corporate endeavor than of a private citizen. If that isn’t additional influence, I don’t know what is.

@Rufus_T_Firefly To me corporate support for candidates is not as evil as you make it out to be. Corporations are not bottomless pits oozing cash to frit away on politicians and when they do, that money is an “investment” for the company…yes with strings attached…that will more than likely bring some payback to the company or improvements for that corporation that often means higher profits which and often means more jobs and tax dollars and free health care for it’s workers. This is what everyone wants isn’t it?

At this point, the discussion of whether we should or should not further limit corporate political contributions isn’t what I’m looking for. (Although, you guys have done well in polite dialog.)

Let’s get back to the premise of my question. Let’s assume a law (or Constitutional amendment even, if you can’t get past the constitutionality of the thing) has already passed and is in effect: Only registered voters can make campaign contributions from this day forward.

What effects do you see this might have?

Since only “little guys” can contribute financially, might that increase participation of the general electorate because folks wouldn’t worry their opinion might be drowned out by massive corporation-backed messaging?

Or perhaps the damage to free speech would be so great that… what, exactly?

@robmandu In the spirit of your restated question I would think very little would change since don’t think too many non-registered voters would pour money into a cause they then wouldn’t even go vote for. And if you are suggesting that this be done while simultaneously eliminating corporate donations which probably wouldn’t change things as corporations would find a way to funnel that money into campaigns with “soft” donations through employees or newly formed PAC’s. Obama made brilliant use of this technique by orchestrating huge donation drives with money coming in through untraceable prepaid credit cards which also allowed for a massive stream of questionable overseas “donations”. Nearly 100 million came in over the internet in untraceable donations. So IMO not much will change, the messages will not be toned down much if at all.

@robmandu – Oddly enough, I’d probably have to agree with Cruiser on this. I doubt there would be too much difference. Although, I’d add that McCain/Palin received quite a few anonymous donations via the internet as well. Thankfully, it wasn’t enough to help them win the election, but that’s an entirely different topic. There does appear to be a serious need for reform and a coherent method of accounting regarding exactly how political donations may be collected.

@Cruiser – I don’t think ALL corporations are evil, but I do believe that the possibility for abuse of the political system is much greater now that they have been given the same rights as individuals. Especially for those corporations who make the bulk of their income as government contractors and suppliers. The GAO catches many of these abusers, but they cannot catch them all. My real point was that the average citizen cannot afford to financially back issues and causes that affect them as easily as corporations can. Hence, the bigger the money the louder the voice. I’d just prefer that the individual’s concerns were finally addressed and see their needs attended to rather than allowing big money to continue calling all the shots.

@Rufus_T_Firefly It is the David Goliath mentality here and I believe the little guy can be heard and if the message is poignant enough he will get heard. Joe the Plumber did a heck of a job in speaking about something he was passionate about and if it resonates with enough people as in legitimate issues, people will listen and join in the chorus. Good or bad the Tea Party-goers are another example of passion driving home the point. Sitting on your ass waving your hands at a computer monitor won’t accomplish much unless you are also calling and or writing your senators and congressman and letting them know that you will send them your 5 bucks if they listen to what you have to say and IMO that IS the way the David can beat the Goliath each and every time! We the people still counts if you are willing to make the effort and it really doesn’t take much.

@Cruiser – Joe the Plumber also lost any credibility he might have ever had, thanks to, um, certain inconsistencies. The Tea-party risks the same possible fate unless they police their ranks and show some real cohesiveness on both the facts and the issues at hand.

As for calling and writing the representatives, I’ve been there – done that and received the standard, ‘Thanks for calling/writing’ form letters and always without a clear acknowledgment of the issues addressed. Maybe if I had offered them thousands of dollars in campaign contributions, it might have had different results. Still, I hope for the best.