Friday, February 29, 2008

Republicans and term limits...

I've recently been trying to figure out why conservative Republicans (and the right-wingnut talk-show hosts who "carry their water") are so against term limits and campaign finance reform.

In doing this research I came across this report. It's fascinating reading regarding the irony of who wants term limits and who doesn't (who is actually making term limits seem like a good idea).

The argument against campaign finance reform seems to be a free-speech issue.

Opponents believe that spending money on a campaign is tantamount to expression, to free speech. People "vote" with their dollars by contributing to their favored candidates; in doing so their individual voices are heard; they have a right to be heard.

Makes perfect sense to me.

What I disagree with is the argument as it applies to organizational contributions, that corporations/organizations can expect the same rights afforded to individuals (what is called, euphemistically, "corporate personhood"). But the truth is, corporations, unions, and other "interested" organizations aren't individuals, aren't real people, per se, so they can't expect to have or to enjoy the rights of an individual, of a real person.

Yes, the employees of corporations are tax-paying voters --- are individuals by any definition of the term --- but the corporations for which they work aren't, so corporations/organizations simply can't expect the same free-speech treatment afforded individuals.

To me it's this simple. (Although this would suggest otherwise.)


As a result, campaign finance reform would not affect the "rights" of corporations/organizations because these entities don't have these rights in the first place. But the individuals who work for these entities would still have their right to free-speech, to vote with their dollars for their candidates of choice, as the constitution clearly indicates they should.

No comments: