Put limits on spending for campaigns

Ed Hayes, Las Vegas

Saturday, Feb. 20, 2010 | 2:05 a.m.

Capriciously throwing incumbents out of office might sound attractive, but it requires replacing them with human beings subject to the same temptations as those we deposed. One change I would suggest to protect the public and future politicians from human nature is to remove temptation from them.

To say it’s the decision of politicians to accept or refuse bribes — and then place them in an environment in which bribes are thrust upon them from all directions — is ignoring reality. The way in which we finance our political campaigns is just such a situation.

Money wins elections! It’s not by accident that we constantly hear and read that an election is more or less likely dependent on the amount of money available to spend on it. No one gives politicians money unless they want or expect them to behave in a certain way. Often, just the threat of giving large sums of money to an opponent is enough to get compliance. Foreign countries look with astonishment at the way we legally encourage political bribery while hypocritically calling it freedom of speech. So I propose we pay for all political campaigns through public financing.

I know the Supreme Court made a recent decision that gave corporations and other large organizations the same rights and privileges enjoyed by individual citizens. However, the court has been known to make mistakes. And mistakes in the law can be corrected and common sense “public financing” can be enacted if we have the political will.

Depending on the importance of the office and the number of constituents served, taxpayers should mandate a limit on the money that can be spent and then pay for the campaigns of qualified candidates. It would be an unequaled bargain for taxpayers. No longer would officials be beholden to special interests, shadowed individuals or corporations. They might still make decisions contrary to the public good, but they would be their own decisions.