I just got an email from Dick Durbin, one of our Illinois Senators, informing people that they would like to add an amendment to the US Constitution to give Congress the power to limit corporate contributions to political campaigns.  They do not mention unions or other types of groups in this, so from the get go, you can see that they are not serious about limiting special interests from campaigns, just corporate interests. 

Aside from this, I have a couple of problems with this amendment idea.  First, is it the money from special interests that is really the problem, or is it the politicians who are being bought by the money?  Or does it go even deeper to the idea that the federal government is involving itself and tinkering in areas that it does not have authority given to it from our US Constitution?  If the federal government was not involving itself in many of these areas, there would be no need for special interests to be trying to get in their say so on these issues, at least at the federal level.  Is it possible that the writers of the Constitution specifically limited the federal government to limited powers for this very reason?

My other problem with this amendment is that, if the federal government is going to continue messing in these areas, and no one is going to stop them, then special interests do deserve a say so in issues that are going to affect them directly.  To take this away from anyone, is simply wrong.  You only have to place yourself in the position of the interest that is going to be affected to see this.  If I owned a business, and some people in the federal government started talking about making changes such as new taxes or regulations and it was going to affect my business personally, I want to be able to support the candidate that is going to work in my best interest and protect me from government intervention.  I can't imagine that being taken away from me.

I am all for getting rid of what many call crony capitalism.  But the method used to get rid of it is where I think Sen. Dick Durbin is wrong on this.  If you truly want to change things meaningfully for the better, while preserving our freedoms, you have to go to the root of the problem which is taking away the need for special interests to be involved at all.  You get rid of that, what would the corporations be trying to buy and what would the politicians be being bought for.  The change that needs to be made is to get the federal government out of areas it does not have power over and their would be no need for special interests to be involved at all.

I have intentionally been vague when referring to the areas that the federal government has been involving itself that it should not.  The reason for this is that there are just so many.  If you want to learn more about this, take a look at the Constitution Article 1 Section 8 to see this list of powers that the Congress has power overTake a look at this video that does an excellent job of talking about the powers of government.  And while you are at it, watch the other videos in this series that talk about other topics involving the Constitution, such as the general welfare clause.  Enjoy!

Wanted to add in closing, that though I disagree with the amendment being proposed, I am happy to see that they are at least following the Constitution and recognizing that in order to make a change such as they would like to do, they would need a Constitutional amendment to do it.  Usually, Congress just enacts whatever laws they want without thought to whether they are Constitutional or not.  So, I want to thank them for at least following the Constitution on thi
My top choice for the republican presidential primary is Ron Paul.  I am fairly familiar with his views on many issues based on interviews and other short pieces he has written.  I had yet to read any of his books but decided to pick up his latest book at the library.

In his book titled Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom, Ron Paul chooses issues that are affecting our country today.  Each chapter is a separate issue.  While it is best to read the whole book through, you could easily pick and choose the different chapters that most interest you.  You may not agree with him on all his issues, but he does a great job of explaining himself and giving you food for thought.

The great thing about Ron Paul is that all his views are in keeping with upholding the US Constitution and protecting the rights of the people and preserving the powers that are reserved for the states.  While many of the other presidential candidates this time around are also great in many of these same things, each have and issue or two where they are not so concerned with upholding the Constitution or protecting freedoms and instead would like to impose their personal views on the whole country.  While I would still support most of these candidates if they were to win the primary, the ideal candidate is Ron Paul.

Like I mentioned before, I already knew most of Ron Paul's views, but this book really went much deeper than I had expected.  He talked about abuse of power by the federal government and its many agencies, giving specifics that I was not aware of.  Overall, he really drives home the point that the federal government has really overstepped its authority in so many areas and we are less safe and less free because of it.

Anyone who wants to get a alternative perspective than you will get from the average liberal or conservative should pick up Ron Paul's newest book Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom.  I put it on hold at the library, so there was no need to dish out money for it, though it is not that expensive according to Amazon.com.  I found this book to be a very easy read and I had it read in less than 2 days.
I have been spend some time listening to Milton Friedman talk about his views on government and libertarianism and wanted to share a few short videos.  If you go to youtube, there are many other videos on Milton Friedman that you can watch as well. 

Here are a few more videos talking different myths: