We understand that some may view a limit on donations as a limit to the freedom of speech. But a majority of Missourians didn’t agree with that in 1996, when the state voted to establish those limits in the first place.
(Sen. Charlie) Shields and others have said removing contribution limits would add transparency — high donations would have to be reported electronically within a few hours of receipt. Why can’t that transparency be added with limits in place?
Shields’ bill goes in the wrong direction: It should add transparency, but keep the limits. The bill should also amend the law to prevent other wealthy donors from exploiting loopholes. (Rex) Sinquefield, while following the letter of Missouri’s law, is clearly not following the spirit of it.
The editorial is on target. We don't need to open the floodgates for larger contributions. Our system is already tainted by the incredible amount of money poured into elections by special interests.
1 comment:
I thought the Globe was a champion of free speech. Perhaps someone should limit how much money a newspaper can collect or spend.
Post a Comment