Below-copied essay by ap first published at comments, http://aphilosopher.wordpress.com/2014/04/04/unlimited-campaign-contributions/#comments
Spending Is Indubitably A Problem, But "Limits" Are NOT Genuine Solution--Constituencies Per Office Must Rather Be Reduced
(Apollonian, 4 Apr 14)
I agree w. Mike there's certainly a problem. How can individuals, real people, be limited for their spending/contributions but not corp.s which we've all come to hate so cordially?--almost as cordially as their owners/controllers, the Jews who just literally print-up all the money, practically, they want or need (through the US Federal Reserve Bank)? Thus it really does seem these stinking, filthy corp.s have been raised up over real people.
Answer, of course, is there should be no limits on people, hence no limits on corp.s either, for after all if corp.s have rights, people must. FREEDOM means freedom--one should be able to act and spend as one pleases.
Spending doesn't have to be same as speech--spending is action which action must be free like any other sort of non-violent action by the people, speaking or otherwise. Spending is necessary part of expression for getting opinions into newspapers, etc.
The real problem is rather in the structure of office--the fewer the number of office-holders, the easier to bribe them--and yes, campaign contributions can be used as form of bribery. So we simply need a broader, hence greater, number of office-holders, esp. for House of Reps.
US Senators should be elected by the state legislatures as originally intended (up to 1913) in order to reflect best the interests of the states.
US Representatives now have, on average, about 600,000 + constituents--this is too many--making it easier for sheer weight of spending to overcome opponents w. less ability to spend. Number of constituents must be small enough so that candidates can get around by foot and in-person to speak to people, this in way of off-setting the sheer power of spending money, as for newspaper, TV, and radio ads, for example.
As I recall, the original US Constitution made for about 50,000 constituents per representative--even this made it too easy for sheer masses of money to prevail, I'm afraid. Problem then would be the huge mass of legislators, but this could be treated, for example, by means of a lottery system on any given day for those enabled to cast votes.
So Mike hits upon a genuine, serious issue, but his analysis only needs a little more clarity for proper solution--spending limits are NOT the solution. Making the elections relevant and accessible for smaller numbers of constituents per office is the way to go--best off-setting the advantage of greater spending.