Limit money, not speech

Up until recently, there was a law that put a limit on the contributions Americans could make to people running for office to support their campaigns. This law was put in place so that the rich wouldn’t have more power over who was elected than anyone else. It made our elections fair and just.

But the U.S. Supreme Court recently abolished the law because it supposedly restricted freedom of speech. This doesn’t make sense because supporting someone with money isn’t the same thing as speaking your opinions. In addition, overturning this law allows the rich to give as much money as they want to their candidate, and most likely that candidate would have the best interests of the rich in mind while in office.

This leaves the majority of the country at a huge disadvantage. Not only do the lower and middle classes have less say in who gets elected, but their best interests won’t be represented. The best solution is to let the right of freedom of speech extend to those who are actually speaking: the candidates, and allow everyone – not just those with money – an equal say in who gets elected, by voting.

Lauren Orwig

Spokane