Quantcast

Comments about ‘This is a more effective way to enact campaign finance reforms’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, March 12 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

Mr Handy,

That all sounds good, but you mention McCain Feingold while leaving out the citizens united ruling.

That ruling is why we have not "slowed the flow of money into campaigns and elections by a single dime."

I get the concept of donating campaign money to those who already share your view. But I think that the Average American believes that many of those contributions actually AFFECT the way someone votes. (and yes, that includes Union contributions as well as corporate)

The US congress is supposed to "avoid the appearance of impropriety"

What a joke that is.

I can assure you that Walmart would not let their buyers be "influenced" in the same manner.

Why do you think that is?

Here is a novel concept. If you get ALL the big money out, there will be no doubt as to the motives of our politicians.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

On the national level, Republicans have opposed more transparency and disclosure in campaigns. So i don't see it changing in the near future.

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

Promises, promises, promises. I've never seen any elected person keep a promises, yet.

Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT

"Let's shift around a couple of those deck chairs. What? Iceberg? I don't see any iceberg."

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

Mr. Handy's proposal is unclear to me. How does the proposed legislation make donor info any more transparent? He says we'll be able to see the name of the organization that donates. That is true now. But how does that help when "organizations" can continue to hide their true purposes from the public?

Mike in Cedar City
Cedar City, Utah

Sometimes I think that a politician talking about campaign finance is like an alcoholic excusing himself because he only drinks wine. Money in our politics is a national problem that can not be solved short of a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United and declare that political contributions (money donations) are not a form of constitutionally protected speech. And while we are at it, we should eliminate the notion that corporations are people, and provide that congress and legislatures have the power to limit political contributions.

I am sure that this refortm will break the media's avaricious heart, but it's a price that has to be paid to keep our politicians from being the best that money can buy.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments