[–] 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.
[–] Crashmarik 0 points 5 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
I am sure you can count on them do hard hitting probing coverage of her campaign.
[–] 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.
[–] Tevelyn 0 points 2 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.
[–] goodluvin 0 points 2 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.
[–] [deleted] 2 points 16 points 18 points (+18|-2) ago (edited ago)
[–] Eku6 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
I cannot upvote this enough
[–] brother_tempus 2 points -1 points 1 point (+1|-2) ago
exactly