First Amendment

[Jim Knauer <jknauer@lhup.edu>]

I apologize in advance for not having the time to read everyone's contributions.  I have skimmed many and read the summaries. For me the first amendment argument doesn't carry much weight.  Restricting campaign contributions, soft money contributions, and even independent campaign-linked issue ads does not prevent me from talking to my neighbors, writing letters to the editor or trying to get my view published in any venue.  Contribution restrictions limit my ability to buy speech most of my fellow citizens cannot afford.  

I do have one concern that relates to the synergy between are campaign and election systems.  We have the best candidates money can buy running, almost exclusively, in the only two parties that can hope to win.  Winner-take all elections, intentionally restrictive filing regulations, and registration and voting methods that hold down turnout -- all of these things restrict much more than speech; they restrict the democratic choices availavble to citizens.  So... I would enthusiastically endorse a system of public funding and strict limitations on all kinds of purchased speech during election campaigns.  However, to foster the full flowering of First Amendment rights and responsible voting, these recommendations of choice 1 should be combined with instant run-off voting, multi-member districts and proportional representation, fusion tickets and weekend voting.  

In other words, strict limits on buying speech must be combined with maximizing opportunities for choice.