Let’s keep all elections local

Let’s keep all elections local

Once again, the Supreme Court has made a progressive interpretation of the Constitution. If one reads the Bill of Rights, the rights are defined as individual rights, the 10th Amendment reserving rights to the states that are not designated to the federal government. Freedom of speech, as specified in the First Amendment is an individual right, not an organizational right.

By ruling that corporations, unions, and other organizations are able to make campaign contributions as an exercise of their “freedom of speech,” the court has diminished the speech of the individual. Here are two examples. I work for ABC Corp. and through my labors the corporation earns a profit. The executives of ABC Corporation make a large contribution to the campaign of Candidate X from funds earned by my labors. I, on the other hand, support Candidate Y. ABC Corp.’s contribution to X has diminished my contribution to Y, thus minimizing my speech.

In the second example, I am a member of DEF Union Local 1. Through my payment of union dues, DEF Union gains an income and, when the union makes a large contribution to Candidate X, they, too, minimize my speech in support of Candidate Y.

There is only one way to re-empower the freedom of speech of the individual in such matters. That is to limit the candidate’s ability to raise campaign funds. The best way to do this is to limit the funds the candidate can raise to those donated by individuals who live in the district the candidate wants to represent. A candidate for a legislative district would be permitted to raise funds only in that legislative district; a candidate for a statewide position could raise funds only from individuals living (and registered) in the state; a candidate for a congressional district could raise funds only from that district. The only candidate who could raise funds nationally would be one campaigning for president of the United States. And, to attempt to equalize individuals, a limit of, say, $1,000 or $2,000 per year per campaign would prevent the wealthy from “buying” the candidate.

Why should someone or some organization in Washington, California, Maine, or Florida have a say in the election of the governor of Ohio or the congressman to represent the 12th District of Ohio or the state representative of the 5th House district in Ohio? Why should someone living in Cincinnati have a say in who represents Youngstown?

JACK RANCK, Warren