Campaign Contributions

Readers,

Here is a letter to the editor from the On-line edition of today's Chicago Tribune.  It asks pertinent questions relevant to how ethical campaign contributions are at every level of government.

What do you think?

"In the private sector when an executive or manager receives money or a gift from a union, contractor or vendor that they do business with it's called a bribe. In the public sector it's called a campaign contribution. Good government with financial responsibility and public accountability will never exist as long as legalized bribery in the public sector is allowed to continue. The current collective bargaining issue in Wisconsin and its accompanying three-ring circus would be a non-issue if they had the typical employer-union adversarial relationship. Instead the contributions to the politicians create unions that also control the company, much like companies that used to also control the union (apractice that was outlawed in the 1930s for obvious reasons).

Campaign contributions from all entities, whether it's a business, union, non-profit or individual, need to be completely banned if they have a financial relationship with the government. Only then will the needs of the general public outweigh those of the special interest groups. Perhaps a substantial reduction in the amount of available campaign cash might result in a resurgence of spirited debate, in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas.

There are those who will oppose such a concept and make constitutional arguments about one's right to express and financially support their political opinions and positions. However, constitutional rights are waived everyday and that should be a price you have to pay if you want to feed at the public trough".

-- Patrick Burns, Lansing