Thought of the Day

                                                                                                                                                                            Sydney M. Williams

                                                                                          Thought of the Day
                                                                                                                                                                             January 25, 2010

On January 21 the Supreme Court, in 5-4 decision, decided that no restrictions could be imposed on corporate contributions to political campaigns. It is mystifying to me that the decision could have been decided in any other way. In our society, freedom of speech, protected by the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, is fundamental to our rights.

The amount of money spent on political campaigns, to my mind, is repugnant, but people in a free society should always have the right to express their opinions and so should the corporations for which they work. To put artificial limits on the amounts spent, or have all campaigns financed with tax dollars, as some suggest, is to betray the rights of citizens. As a taxpayer, I do not want my tax dollars to be spent on candidates with whom I fundamentally disagree.

The answer has to lie in full disclosure of who has paid what to whom. Every gift, no matter how small, to a political campaign should be indicated on the candidate’s web site for all to view. Corporate gifts should of course be disclosed. Conflicts of interest, pay-offs, all would be known and publicized.

Every time artificial restraints are imposed by the government on the people (and corporations are composed of people) the consequences are far different than originally intended. A good example was the decision by the Clinton Administration, in 1993, to limit the cash component of CEO compensation, which corporations could deduct, to a million dollars. The result was a deluge of options, pitting the executive against long-term holders of the stock and a further widening of the gap between CEOs and the average worker. According to a 2005 Harvard Law School study CEO compensation rose from $3.7 million to $9.1 million in the dozen years following imposition of the law.

However, letting the sun shine into the dark recesses of campaign coffers could well serve to limit contributions, as much of the money prefers darkness and secrecy to openness and disclosure.