Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Why Can't There Be Campaign Finance Reform?

I can’t remember the last time I spoke with anyone who actually likes our current system of campaign financing. Truthfully, the only people who actually support allowing virtually unlimited money to flow into election campaigns are the special interest groups. They have large amounts of money to spend and want to spend it for the sole purpose of influencing legislation that is favorable to their cause -- in other words, people who want the right to legally bribe elected officials. Bribery truly is the correct word here. While the money goes to the campaign’s bank account and not the candidate’s personal bank account, that’s a difference without significance; the candidate needs both accounts flush with money to save his job.

So, if the majority of Americans want to end legalized bribery of elected officials, why doesn’t it happen? Why does virtually every law that is passed to correct this enormous problem get ruled unconstitutional? Believe it or not, the answer our Supreme Court gives us is that these financial contributions are protected by the First Amendment right of free speech. The notion is that if the public does not have the right to spend money to speak their peace, their right to do so is abridged.

But is the right to spend money to speak the same thing as the right to speak?

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Same-Sex Marriage – Cluttering Up Our Constitution

The war of words is underway in Minnesota (and many other states across the country) as ballots will soon give voters the choice on whether to establish a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages. Most ballot initiatives go something like this: “Do you favor a constitutional amendment that will ban same-sex marriage?” Unfortunately, very few voters recognize this question as a false dichotomy. In other words, it's a question that has at least three valid answers but only allows two options for answering. My wife and I used to give our children false dichotomies all the time. We'd ask, “Do you want to go to bed by yourself, or do you want me to carry you to bed?” That worked really well until they were about ten, when they first recognized there was a third option we weren’t giving them – not going to bed at all.

So what are the three valid answers to the same-sex marriage amendment?

1.) Yes, I favor same-sex marriage and vote against the amendment.

2.) No, I oppose same-sex marriage and vote in favor of the amendment.

3.) I oppose same-sex marriage, but I also oppose changing the constitution.


This third group is in an unusual position of having to choose which is worse, allowing same sex marriage or changing the constitution.