Are not charges of Campaign Finance violations of the First Amendment?

Yes, Karen, Campaign Finance Reporting Law are total violation of the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. Political Speech has to be free. The Campaign Finance laws remove good honest people from running for office. In some states buying a Latte at Starbucks would be a reportable campaign contribution if one purchased one for a neighbor running for office and would have to be reported both by the donor and the person running. The cost of just setting up reporting accounts consumes time and money which largely is distributed to State Union control workers. The state has the belief that all funds are theirs and how you spend your money must be reported.

The people who write new, wrote old or enforce any Campaign finance laws should read the the First amendment of the US Constitution and all or almost all State Constitutions which read: X shall make NO LAW ... "abridging the freedom of speech" . Many of the same should have a dictionary to understand the usage of "Make NO LAW" and "abridging".

NOTE: David I gave you thumbs down, because you are very "liberal" with other peoples money and property. "Free room and board food" Giving away property that does not belong to you has another name THEFT.

We have these laws because money donated to political campaigns is considered an exercise of the right of free speech. This policy creates untold havoc in our political system. Some people donate because of identification with the principles and policies of the candidate. Others donate to gain access for their agenda. Money is needed to pay for campaign expenses. What is to be done about this problem of the influence of special interest as compared to and with the interest of the common people?

You mentioned advertising as a primary cost of campaigning. In today's world this means in addition to flyers and leaflets and pamphlets we have newspapers, radio, and television. There are also the cost associated with travel for room and food as well as meeting space to expound on your ideas and the policies you will strive to implement. These are all noteworthy obstacles and require huge amount of funding from gifts from individuals, groups, and corporations in order to be elected. What is to be done about this???

1. Free advertizing for everybody that wants to run for office to explain his ideas and policies that he favors and will work to achieve. Free television time, free radio time, and free ads in newspapers.

2. Free advertizing to respond to your opponent in the same media forum.

3. Free room and food and meeting space required for all political candidates as a requirement of keeping the permits that they hold from the state and from the city or town as a requirement for their continuation of doing business.

4. Fund any additional cost for campaign promotion through funding by the taxes paid to the government.

Implementation of this policy will enable anybody to freely run for office without any obligations to anybody else.

Note to Karen L: The whole idea here is to promote the public good by increasing the availability of information about the candidates and the policies they favor so that the voters can make decisions based on correct information, and discussion of the issues presented. The policy suggested above is only one way to achieve this goal. There are other ways to accomplish the same objective. The policy above would almost eliminate the cost of political campaigns. The cost factor of campaigns is a substantial impediment to the free expression of ideas and new policies to bring new solutions to the problems we face today. With regard to television and radio, the airwaves belong to the public and the federal and state governments regulate them for the public good. The same would hold true for all candidates of state and federal offices for meeting space and hotels and food. The important thing is that monetary impediments to candidates be eliminated. Should the providers of these services be compensated or required to do them because the cause of democracy would be promoted? This is a different question, one to which you alluded. Payment of the cost associated with campaigns out of the public treasury is a simple answer. A similar answer would be to allow tax credits for the associated cost. It is my opinion that this should be done to promote the democratic process, and governments can require conditions to permits that they grant whether this be on the federal, state or local level to increase candidate access to the public and public media.

I see nothing wrong with new regulations that would eliminate campaign cost, promote public discussion, and promote democracy.