RE: Upon entering this discussion

[Nina Powers <npowers@Home.com>]

Hi Devon,

 I found your parents second question to you on campaign finance reform,"How do you limit funding without infringing on First Amendment rights?" interesting. Others in this discussion also associated restrictions on monetary political contributions with restrictions on free speech. It must be my interpretation of the Bill of Rights, but I don't see any First Amendment violation;

 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

 Putting limits on the amount of money corporations, unions, special interest groups, or individuals can contribute to a political party or candidate is just that: limits on money, not _expression_ of speech. Now a wealthy donor gets more opportunity to be heard than the average citizen. Why should someone that donates $500,000 have more freedom to express themselves to an elected official than I, who may have donated only $20? That's what's happening in our society today. How does establishing a monetary limit on the amount of a soft money contribution violate the First Amendment? It would appear that the average citizen right to express themselves is being violated by those that pay to be heard.