[–] CatNamedJava 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
The way the founding fathers wanted it. Can't let the rabble ruin democracy.
[–] 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.
[–] fuck_communism 0 points 1 point 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.
[–] cynoclast [S] 0 points 2 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
[–] fuck_communism 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
Brandeis was the original activist Justice.
[–] 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.
[–] luckyguy 0 points 1 point 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.
[–] 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.
[–] 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.
[–] Tecktonik 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
If you start with a false equivalence, you can prove anything.