The counter argument is that any infringement upon voting violates the right to free speech and possibly also of representation.

Great reasoning. Thank you for your thoughts!

I understand your mistake of lumping 'all' that work for the gov't, but as a retired U.S. Marine I worked for the gov't to protect its citizens and its Constitution and all that includes from those trying to harm or destroy it or them. Those that serve in this capacity are far more likely to be trustworthy. The same goes for most Police, Firefighters and the like, while the converse is the case in the 'political' side of the gov't where less are trustworthy and more are corrupt.

When you add Union's to the gov't now you will also have many more being untrustworthy then not. But still, not all will be untrustworthy.

What is the counter argument?

The irony is that some of the tax money paying their salaries is mine and its going to a candidate that I despise.

You are exactly correct, blarman, that there is an inherent conflict of interest there. But the solution, in a moral government, is not to further restrict human rights (two wrongs do not make a right), but to correct the origin of the problem...

Anyone whose employment is sucking at the national nipple............should not be allowed to contribute to any national election

Being that as described by our founders, those in the employ of the gov't are a 'privileged' "employee" in that their "income" comes solely from the American People [Citizens of the several states, federal territories or those allowed to work in under the protection of these United States that are not citizens of it.

For this reason they should not be legally allowed to donate money to vote for anyone except their own State Candidates and definitely not the the Executive [Pres. & Vice Pres.] The Privilege term is important because from the beginning of the U.S. Constitution until now and even in 1862 it points out who is and isn't liable to certain laws of these United States of America. This being said; these are the only American citizen "employee's" with "income" deemed payable to the federal gov't through the Internal Revenue Tax collected by the IRS.

Again those being paid by tax dollars should not be allowed to donate to the entity that can increase their income or the amount of people so privileged to be 'employed' under them.

While the donation portion of this posting is purely my opinion made from my understanding, and vast study of the history of these United States, of the what the founders deemed corrected..the laws governing the Tax liability of the American People to the federal government is not; it is factual and legally binding.

I did not say expression should be unlimited, but your rights should be. We must understand what a right actually is, however.
Lets break down the fallacy of that classical argument:
To begin, if there actually IS a fire in a crowded theater, then screaming fire could save people's lives. If there isn't you are acting fraudulently and possibly causing a panic and injuring people due to your false information.
One does not have the "right" to harm others, and presenting false information is an act of coercion and force, like fraud. Therefore the latter example is not an example of the right to freedom of expression. It cannot be a curb on a right if it is not a right in the first place.
Your arguments about strict scrutiny are arguments about law, not about philosophy, moral, ethics, or even politics strictly. That is mistaking the letter of the law for the concept behind the law. That strict scrutiny concept is intended to protect the concept of not violating people's rights, so we should not base arguments about whether a law or right or wrong, moral or immoral, etc on whether it specifically fits the "strict scrutiny" definition, but whether it protects rights or violates them.

That sounds like a recipe to incentivize people to get off Social Security and Medicare, and make their own way, as swiftly as possible. We must now see Social Security and Medicare as traps. Rand missed that in her analysis.

Holcomb--that is, the author of the piece--actually touches on an important element here. It says 97 percent of all political donations are going to the obvious big-government candidate. (Whether that's 97 percent of checks written or 97 percent of the aggregate amount of the checks, Holcomb does not make clear.) He says of course they are giving to Clinton, because they are much afraid Trump will fire the lot.

But Holcomb misses one important element. It's one thing to say, "Trump has no reason to trust these particular government employees, so of course he will fire them, and hire his own men to fill their slots." But it would be quite another matter altogether to say, "So-and-so will come in wielding an ax to chop off the deadwood of government." Which of course is what John Galt would do, if anyone ever persuaded him to run for President and if by some chance he could win election. He would eliminate all the quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial bodies, and in fact every department except those of State, the Treasury, Defense, and Justice.

Any discussion of limits on the campaigning activities, private donations, or voting rights of government employees, must take that into account.

Note carefully: government employees' activities fall into three categories. The first--overt campaigning on government time--is already illegal. Research the phrase "Hatch Act" in any search engine. Under it, no employee may use a government copying machine to run off campaign flyers or posters, nor work on a campaign while on paid leave.

Next would be the private donations. Since employment by the government is an act of mutual consent, it follows that the government may restrict private giving by government employees and their immediate families if they so wish. And maybe the people should insist upon that.

Finally, as to voting: the late Robert A. Heinlein, in Starship Troopers, projected a society in which military or other government service members would not be allowed to vote while working for the government. "Why, if they let [members of a certain combat unit] vote, the idiots might vote not to [go on a combat mission]. Can't have that!" Of course, Heinlein proposed limiting the franchise to those who had completed a term of government service lasting two years or more--and did not propose to limit the types of service that would qualify one for the franchise. (For instance, terraforming engineers would also qualify, this although they were not military.)

And United States history has examples of manipulation of "the soldier vote." Abraham Lincoln so manipulated the votes of soldiers and sailors in the United States Army and Navy in the Election of 1864. Barack Obama's critics lay the same charge at his door, especially as regards absentee balloting.

And in this context, I must tell you all: Governor Terry McAuliffe of Virginia has implicated himself in a scheme, in Fairfax County, Virginia, to stuff absentee ballot envelopes with Democratic Party campaign materials, in clear violation of Virginia election law. I intend to raise this issue at my next opportunity to meet in person with certain members of the Virginia House of Delegates, with a view to bringing Articles of Impeachment against the governor for that offense.

All that to say: the right of citizens to vote need not, in my opinion, apply to those who have a vested interest in the growth of government. But in any case, rules must apply to everyone, or they are not respectable at all.

Do we have the right to infringe upon another's right? That is the question.

I tend to agree with your stance, but I think that there is substantial merit to the counter-argument. I don't want to jump to a conclusion without thinking things through.

What you are really pointing out, is that they have conflicting interests, because while they may ultimately work for us and we ultimately pay the bills, we're a long ways off in the chain, and we don't directly control either their position or their salary. We have very little power in the grand scheme of things.

Me dino's immediate response to blarman's question was a roaring no.
That was a roar roared with raw emotion.
That's not the Ayn Rand way of thinking things out.
You are right. This is a first amendment issue.
The self-serving greedy little rats do not have to think objectively and can donate up to whatever unconstitutional limits Big Brother may impose.

Ultimately, this may indeed be the best course of action.

It's never irrelevant if they are voting against their employer's (my and your) interests.

That is simply not possible. Take the right to speech, for example, and the quintessential "fire in the opera house" case. All rights have appropriate expression - which is not the same as unlimited expression. Any infringement should fall under what in judicial terms is called "strict scrutiny" - meaning that there must be a specifically-tailored law that serves a compelling government interest and which proscribes a very limited infringement. The question is would any such restriction on the voting rights of government employees fall under that test of strict scrutiny?

I completely agree. Government employees are OUR employees and we have the right to bar them from voting against our interests. So, they should not be allowed to donate or vote.

There are conflict of interest rules that should prevent the kind of shenanigans we saw with FBI Director Comey, but there's no trust that anyone will enforce the rules, as we've seen. I'm more in favor of complete transparency: anyone who donates any amount to a candidate will have to expect their name will be subject to public disclosure. That way it doesn't matter how much money someone contributes, as they won't be able to hide. With that condition, we have to outlaw PACs, which are another way influence can be hidden.

All rights should be unlimited. As Rand would say, there is no compromise between a robber and his victim.

A lot fewer government employees... then who the few remaining donate money to will be irrelevant.

Thanks for your thoughts. The quandary is of course exactly as you point out: is there an unlimited right to expression through political contributions even in the face of an obvious conflict of priorities in the voting rights of government employees (as demonstrated in this article). I, however, don't hold to the notion of an unlimited right of expression and I take a jaundiced view of human nature with regard to government. I respect the Founding Fathers' skepticism of those who hold office, but I also note that they didn't place any restrictions upon government workers' rights at their time. I don't think they envisioned a federal government as large and intrusive as what we have now, either...

Great thought. Thank you.

Government employees should be barred from donating to campaigns and barred from voting. I don't see it as a violation of their rights. They have the right to work in the private sector if they want to vote. I talked to someone yesterday who said a teacher told her the pressure from the teachers union to vote Democrat is incredible. She said some do it just to protect their jobs even though no one could really know for sure who you voted for.

The hidden question is "Can government employees be relied upon to be objective and to exercise the power provided by their position with integrity?" Recent events, as well as many from the past, suggest no.