[–] newoldwave ago (edited ago)
The more money you donate, the more politicians ears you get listening to you. I blame the SCOUS for this situation.
[–] china_troll 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
Washington Post has much more speech than I do. What should we do about that?
[–] wolfsktaag 3 points -2 points 1 point (+1|-3) ago (edited ago)
bill gates can afford a lot more guns than i can. so bill gates has more of a right to bear arms than i do. my second amendment rights are being infringed upon. am i doing this right?
No, our government is supposed to be elected and represent our citizens. They are supposed to be paid a wage to do that job by the people. Instead they become indebted to big donors and do favors for their 'friends' who give them money. It is amazing to me that you don't see a problem with that.
[–] brother_tempus 7 points -2 points 5 points (+5|-7) ago
The problem with this arrangement is the more money you have, the more speech you get."
Ot not really a problem at all
the more websites you heve the more speech you have.... maybe we should outlaw websites as well
if we follow this flawed logic :
the more guns you have the greater you ability to defend yourself is .. would that be a problem?
the more encryption you use the more private your effects and papers would be ... is that a problem?
the more vehicles you have, the more your right to travel would be enhanced ... is that a problem?
The fact is having more of something is not the problem here .... the problem is that Corporatism ( fascism ) is merely national socialism to include the legal fiction of corporations. Corporations are created by government. Anybody talking about the evils of corporations is just another beneficiary of corporate money in Politics.
Want to fix Citizens United, the correct and most effective way to do that is to repeal the 14th Amendment which created this problem in the first place
[–] Sir-Real 0 points 7 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago
Your arguments are all pretty much strawmen in that the one difference between the other examples you present and the "money = speech" issue is that the latter can directly influence lawmaking.
This country no longer becomes one for the people if only those with more money get any rights to "speaking" to lawmakers and enforcers.
Privacy, defense, and travel does not have a direct influence on political and economic decision making.
[–] didntsayeeeee 0 points 1 point 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.