If I asked why, as a resident of Cincinnati, I am not permitted to vote for the Mayor of Blue Ash, people may consider the question absurd.  Naturally, I have no particular right to vote in Blue Ash elections since I live in Cincinnati.  Participation, we all understand, is linked to residency, voting access, and so forth.  However, why does this same thinking not apply when we consider campaign contributions?

Why are people who do not live in the City of Cincinnati—and therefore do not have the participatory rights in government as voters—have the ability to give campaign dollars to City candidates?  Whenever critics start talking about limits on contributions, the issue is framed as a free speech issue.  But wouldn’t it be ridiculous for a Cincinnati resident to claim casting a ballot in Blue Ash as a form of free speech?

If some big money contributor from outside the City gives money to a Cincinnati candidate, for an election in which s/he cannot even vote, then what is the motivation?

Arguably, big money contributors have a greater impact on politics than voters, since their dollars are utilized to sway public opinion and voter behavior.  In other words, the pockets of a few non-City residents have become more significant than the actual voices of real Cincinnati citizens.

This is not a free speech issue.  This is about an end to influence peddling. 

• Share This Article!
Listen to this article

del.icio.us

Furl It

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can log in above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.