0
1

[–] fuck_communism 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I don't have a problem with that as long as donors are disclosed. The problem is donations are laundered through entities who do not have to disclose who gives them money.

0
2

[–] cynoclast [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I do have a problem with that.

We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.

Louis D. Brandeis,

Former Supreme Court Justice.

Don't believe it?

It already happened: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig:

The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.

America has a bought congress. The working class is being extracted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_Fmb1H3TLc

1
-1

[–] fuck_communism 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Brandeis was the original activist Justice.

0
1

[–] luckyguy 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

People do have a right to speech and they have a right to use money to benefit themselves or others how ever they see fit. The real question is if political speech is some form of special speech that deserves to have money associated with it be tax deductible for the donor and tax exempt by the organization. Pornography is defined as speech. Should all money spent on pornography be deductible and porn companies pay no taxes. Magazines are speech. Rights to speech is important but the first amendment only intends to ensure your speech is not inhibited, not tax deductible.

0
1

[–] NoBroken 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

So you don't see a problem with what amounts to paying a politician for favors?

0
1

[–] didntsayeeeee 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

The amount of speech I can buy with my money is insignificant to the amount of speech that some random Hollywood celebrity, or shitty-ass WaPo "journalist", or non-threatening handsome teenage boy on twitter with forty million followers, can get for free.

0
2

[–] goodluvin 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

With unlimited contributions, politicians only have to go to a few people for financing. End result, the politician owes the major contributor because the politician will have to go back to the small group for more money later.

Hence, the few major contributors get favorable government policies that only benefit them at the expense of everyone else.

2
-1

[–] cynoclast [S] 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

End result, the politician owes the major contributor because the politician will have to go back to the small group for more money later.

Er.... you have that entirely backwards...

1
0

[–] goodluvin 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

owes = indebted to another.

0
2

[–] Tevelyn 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

No shit, just look at how much speech the faggot who owns the washington post can afford. It's almost like rich people just buy news agencies and use them as mouth pieces when you limit campaign contributions. It's almost like some ass hole named hurst just about ran out country via owning the news.

0
5

[–] Crashmarik 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Funny it's always the media that gets upset about this. It's almost as if they get upset about other people getting a message out to the public.

I mean look at Hillary's press corps

http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/5ff98c4/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F5f%2F46%2F000bfad44dc2b4ffed8d153002e8%2Flede-vegas-women-journalists-politico-28-27-web.jpg

I am sure you can count on them do hard hitting probing coverage of her campaign.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 16 points (+18|-2) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

2
-1

[–] brother_tempus 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

exactly

1
0

[–] Eku6 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

I cannot upvote this enough