–The simple solution to campaign contribution limits

Mitchell’s laws: Reduced money growth never stimulates economic growth. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity breeds austerity and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.

Despite the misguided rulings by the the Supreme Court justices, all of whom are part of the wealthy 1%, and Mitt Romney’s incessant backing and filling, corporations are not people. They employ people. They are owned by people. But a corporation, in of itself, is not a person.

Nor is a PAC (political action committee) a person. It too employs people and is owned by people and is beholden to people, but a PAC is not a person. Nor is any other group of people a person.

Corporations cannot vote, nor can they run for office. Corporations do not have citizenship; they don’t carry passports. They can’t adopt a child, attend elementary school, or be on the football team.

If a corporation is put out of business, the right-to-lifers will not protest its death. If a corporation is doing poorly, it will not enter a hospital. Corporations cannot read, write, run, dance, sing or speak. You cannot even see a corporation. You cannot touch a corporation. You cannot hear or smell a corporation, even when they stink. They are non-physical entities, that exist only as legal filings.

The notion that a corporation, which has no ability to speak, write or even think, is entitled to Constitutional, freedom of speech protections, as though it were a person, is patently ridiculous. This treatment of corporations is part of the wealthiest 1%’s ongoing efforts to control the other 99%, by flooding elections with money.

Although Congress makes a great pretense of trying to solve the contribution unfairness problem, the solution is dazzlingly simple: Just as every adult citizen is entitled to one vote in each election for one office seeker in each office, every adult citizen should be entitled to one contribution limit in each election for one office seeker in each office.


Is that so difficult?

As a citizen, you might be entitled to contribute no more than, for instance, $1,000 to your Representative’s campaign, $1,000 to each of your two Senators, and $1,000 to the one Presidential candidate of your choice. And no contributions would be allowed to the campaigns of anyone for whom you would not be allowed to vote.

Local elections could be handled similarly, and all contributions could go through one central clearing house in each state, to monitor the process.

Folks, this is not rocket science. It is a simple, straightforward way to give each citizen an equal voice, and to prevent the deep-pocket 1% from controlling every election.

And that is why it never will be adopted. Heaven forbid the poor have an equal voice with the wealthy.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
b>Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment + Private Consumption + Net exports


6 thoughts on “–The simple solution to campaign contribution limits

  1. I’m surprised the law is so confused in the US.

    In the UK we have two categories of legal people. ‘individuals’ are natural persons. The ones that go to hospital and vote, whereas ‘persons’ are both individuals and corporate entities.

    So for trade relations where it makes sense to see indiviudals and corporates as one it references ‘persons’ and for laws that should only apply to real people it uses ‘individuals’.

    Voting legislation should always be about individuals in a democracy.


  2. First and foremost you may be absolutely correct about
    “Although Congress makes a great pretense of trying to solve the contribution unfairness problem, the solution is dazzlingly simple: Just as every adult citizen is entitled to one vote in each election for one office seeker in each office, every adult citizen should be entitled to one contribution limit in each election for one office seeker in each office. ”

    This is about every adult citizen,a corporation is an entity,a person;

    By definition-

    A corporation is created under the laws of a state as a separate legal entity that has privileges and liabilities that are distinct from those of its members. There are many different forms of corporations, most of which are used to conduct business. Early corporations were established by charter (i.e. by an ad hoc act passed by a parliament or legislature). Most jurisdictions now allow the creation of new corporations through registration.

    An important (but not universal) contemporary feature of a corporation is limited liability. If a corporation fails, shareholders may lose their investments, and employees may lose their jobs, but neither will be liable for debts to the corporation’s creditors.

    Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like natural persons (“people”). Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state, and they can themselves be responsible for human rights violations. Corporations are conceptually immortal but they can “die” when they are “dissolved” either by statutory operation, order of court, or voluntary action on the part of shareholders. Insolvency may result in a form of corporate ‘death’, when creditors force the liquidation and dissolution of the corporation under court order, but it most often results in a restructuring of corporate holdings. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offenses, such as fraud and manslaughter. However corporations are not living entities in the way that humans are.


    or something like ,”A More Simple Solution, In order to contribute YOU MUST HAVE A VOTER’ REGISTRATION CARD.


      1. I think the ruling that first marginalized the 99 percent was Buckley v. Valeo, which made the extraordinary decision that money is protected by the First Amendment.


  3. Tyler, it indeed was a stretch.

    Actually, the ruling was that spending is protected free speech, which is illogical. If spending is protected speech, and there is no limit on protected speech, there can be no limit on spending. But some spending limits do exist, so I suppose that means you can speak for a half hour, but not for an hour.

    The Supreme Court is a group of 1%ers, appointed, bought and paid for by other 1%ers — particularly the right wing of the Supreme Court.

    You’ll notice the Court ruled candidates can give an unlimited amount to their own campaigns, which gives a huge advantage to rich candidates, particularly in local elections.

    I have a vague memory the decision was rendered per curiam, meaning we don’t know who voted for what. I may be wrong about that, but if true, it would be a cowardly approach for people who have lifetime jobs.

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s