3 ms·
You're right that there isn't a lot of evidence about whether money influences elections. But ultimately it doesn't matter whether money influences elections.
by JamesBarney 11y ago
You're right that there isn't a lot of evidence about whether money influences elections. But ultimately it doesn't matter whether money influences elections. What is more important is whether elected officials believe money is influential in elections, and I think this is trivially true.
What are your fears if "The Democracy is for People Amendment" passed? Are you worried that the congress would limit political spending too much? Or are you worried that the amendment doesn't specifically separate political spending from political speech well enough?
- tptacek 11y agoIt doesn't separate political spending from political speech at all.
- JamesBarney 11y agoI read this as specifically giving congress the authority to set limits on raising and spending money. I don't see any language granting them to ability to restrict political speech. SECTION 1.To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections. [0] - https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/19/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-joint-re...
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- dragonwriter 11y agoThe only thing it authorizes is limits on "the raising and spending of money ... to influence elections", it doesn't address speech as distinct from raising and spending money at all. So it seems to separate them quite distinctly.