LETTER: Tax dollars should go to fund future elections

Editor,

Once again I find myself in disagreement with Craig Butler's editorial commentary, this time concerning public financing of elections.

Mr. Butler states that public financing infringes on "the long-standing tradition that campaign contributions are a form of free speech" and concludes that the "switch to positive campaigning will have to come from somewhere else."

I recognize that the U.S. Supreme Court holds a similar opinion - that giving money to politicians is protected speech - but I remain unconvinced that public financing of elections somehow infringes on that right. Under a public financing scheme, our taxes would be used to fund election campaigns. Presumably, those with large incomes, like corporations and the wealthy, would pay at least some taxes. Under anything like an equitable and progressive taxation system, they would pay more.

How, then, is anyone deprived of their right to "speak" with their money? Answer: they're not. With public financing, we would all talk with our tax dollars (with some talking "louder" than others) but more importantly, we would all communicate equally with our votes. By introducing public financing, the only thing the rich are deprived of is the "right" to simply buy more "influence" and more control (and I would go so far as to say more favors) than those of us with little or no money.

The U.S. Constitution mandates one person, one vote. Contrary to Mr. Butler's argument, neither longstanding traditions, nor erroneous Supreme Court decisions that place more value on money than votes, are immutable. The only thing that will not change without public financing of our elections is the ongoing erosion of a people's democracy in America.

David Vaughan

UNM student