This is a more effective way to enact campaign finance reforms

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    March 13, 2013 9:50 a.m.

    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.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    March 12, 2013 5:10 p.m.

    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?

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    March 12, 2013 10:37 a.m.

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

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    March 12, 2013 8:46 a.m.

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

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 12, 2013 8:31 a.m.

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

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    March 12, 2013 7:33 a.m.

    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.