LETTERS: Campaign donation limits attack freedom of speech

One resident questions whether limiting large donations will have its intended impact

People want to advance their beliefs. B.C. Green Party leader Andrew Weaver tries to create an artificial distinction between time spent earning money to donate and time spent doing campaigning directly, such as phoning and preparing mailings.

His position is consistent with Marxist teachings that anyone who has money stole it from someone else – fixed pie economics denying the human mind and a vague power theory. In fact, companies and organizations like political movements have begun from very little, in the face of established entities.

U.S. experience is that campaign finance restrictions favour incumbents, who have name recognition – Weaver is now an incumbent who’s been busy getting publicity for his party toward the next election.

Note, too, that money has not elected several presidential wannabes in the U.S., such as Ross Perot. Donald Trump is winning for a different reason – he’s successfully hooked into voter disgust with conventional politicians, which Weaver has become.

Canadian experience is that conservative parties do well with small donations – that’s why neo-Marxist parties were yelling and screaming about loss of the system that picked taxpayers’ pockets to fund them.

Limiting large donations seems convenient for Weaver, as he thinks they don’t go to his party – unions want jobs, which his policy of de-industrialization would eliminate.

But much money goes to Weaver’s eco-friends from large organizations such as Tides, engaging in a continual campaign, and from corporations hedging their bets and pandering to his irrationality for PR purposes.

Is he willing to forgo that help, by eliminating any promotion of ideas, any time of any year?

Keith Sketchley

Saanich