comments

Take money out of politics

Reader Input
-A +A
Re: Dianne Foster’s “Unions behind ID theft scare,” (Reader Input, Aug. 2): Ms. Foster, your article confuses me as to your real concerns. You start out talking about an ID theft initiative which you blame the unions for? Another petition (falsely proclaimed and entitled “paycheck protection”) that is circulating simultaneously, according to you, is a “coincidence,” apparently because there are two petitions that are out at the same time. I thought that happened commonly. You state that unions take money from their members’ paychecks and use it for political purposes. For your information, unions (the ones I am aware of) ask their membership for voluntary contributions either when they hire, or afterward. Consider the large corporations both from inside and outside America. They outspent voluntary donations from labor by a margin of 21-to-1 in the last general election. Just wait until next year. That disparity will grow exponentially. There are corporations that insist each manager or executive of their company write a check for the maximum amount allowed to a candidate the top executives choose. The threat of reprisal for not complying is obvious. If you want to get serious about fixing America’s problems, lets take money completely out of politics. Qualified candidates in political races from cities and counties to state and federal elections would receive nothing other than a specific funded amount, thereby leveling the playing field. Our representatives would then be free to do the right thing for the citizens of this great country and not be indebted to special interests at all. There was a submission made last time “paycheck protection” (a red herring) was tried. It was suggested that if the unions had to get permission from each member annually (as the initiative stated), so must the corporations with their shareholders. Corporate America rejected this idea outright without any sensible explanation. The only way we can make elections fair, is to make them fair for everyone. Otherwise you get the $140 million spending Meg Whitmans of this country trying to buy positions of power. I feel your intuitive “indications” are simply guesses with a tea party slant. Timothy L. Smith, Cool