Las Vegas Sun

October 22, 2017

Currently: 82° — Complete forecast


Spending reform needn’t conflict with free speech

Ed Hayes, in his Saturday letter to the editor headlined “Put limits on spending for campaigns,” points out the problem with campaign spending and its influence on our elected officials.

However, the solutions he suggests (funding limits and public funding) would conflict with our First Amendment right to free speech. Three other solutions have been suggested that do not conflict with the First Amendment and should be considered:

-- Contributions for a candidate could be made to a blind trust where the candidate would have no knowledge of their supporters.

-- All contributions could be subject to full disclosure such that if an elected official submits legislation favoring a contributor or does not recuse himself from a vote on legislation benefiting the contributor, it would be public knowledge.

-- Repeal of the 17th Amendment, which would mean senators once again would be appointed by the state legislatures. This would take money and special interests out of politics, since the senators would be beholden only to the state. This would also have the added benefit of limiting the size of the federal government, since laws that are best addressed at the state level would more likely be left to the states.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy