Although Supreme Court decisions have thus far protected freedom of speech and explicitly stated that the people, not the government, must decide how much is appropriate to spend on elections, we cannot indefinitely depend on the Court to protect freedoms that we do not ourselves understand and support. Attempts have been made to amend the Constitution to give the U.S. Congress the power to regulate campaign contributions and spending. Allowing government to decide how much can be spent by candidates for public office will have important ramifications for our political future. This book is a collection of selected articles and essays that I hope will let readers reach an informed and independent conclusion of the issues involved. It includes articles by experts on the American political process, selections from decisions of the Supreme Court, shorter pieces by a variety of commentators, and speeches and articles by politicians prominently involved in the debate.
Internet technology makes prompt disclosure possible and inexpensive.
This view expresses a distrust of the people's ability to make judgments about their government, those they want to elect, and, ultimately, their ability to control their government rather than be controlled by it. This per-person calculation cuts the ground from under the argument that we spend too much on elections. Under deregulation, direct contributions to candidates would probably increase at the expense of contributions to independent groups and political parties. This shift would increase accountability and make it easier to know where a candidate's money was coming from. But the wealthy are diverse in their political preferences.