4 ms·

I share the same perspective, but draw a different conclusion. Instead, educate the electorate, the first step of which is reversing Citizens United. Then, make

I share the same perspective, but draw a different conclusion. Instead, educate the electorate, the first step of which is reversing Citizens United. Then, make voting as easy as signing up for Facebook (whether that means online or mail-in voting). An informed, active electorate is the single most terrifying thing to the Establishment.

caseysoftware 10y ago
US schools can't teach everyone to read, expecting them to be able to effectively teach complex topics that involve nuance - let alone opinions - is wishful thinking.
- nathancahill 10y ago
  I'm not suggesting government sponsored education, rather, the absence of corporate and super PAC spending in down-ballot (and up-ballot) campaigns.
chimeracoder 10y ago
> Instead, educate the electorate, the first step of which is reversing Citizens United. Citizens United is easily the most misunderstood SCOTUS case in history at this point. Citizens United has pretty much nothing to do with educating the electorate. It is about the right of ad-hoc groups of individuals to exercise the same rights of speech that individuals and media corporations already have. Ironically, it has nothing to do with making it easier for the wealthy to influence politics, and actually makes it possible for the middle class to have influence that they would otherwise never have. Before 2009, there was nothing stopping Michael Moore from self-funding a documentary about Bush's war crimes on advance of the election. Citizens United affirms that a group of people who, unlike Moore, aren't wealthy enough to produce an entire film individually could still pool their money together and produce that movie together. They could launch, say, an IndieGoGo campaign to produce their own version of Last Week Tonight, focused exclusively on the election. This is almost entirely orthogonal to education of the electorate, though to be honest, it's easier to make the argument that Citizens United makes it easier to educate the electorate than the other way around.

caseysoftware 10y ago

US schools can't teach everyone to read, expecting them to be able to effectively teach complex topics that involve nuance - let alone opinions - is wishful thinking.

nathancahill 10y ago
I'm not suggesting government sponsored education, rather, the absence of corporate and super PAC spending in down-ballot (and up-ballot) campaigns.

chimeracoder 10y ago

> Instead, educate the electorate, the first step of which is reversing Citizens United. Citizens United is easily the most misunderstood SCOTUS case in history at this point. Citizens United has pretty much nothing to do with educating the electorate. It is about the right of ad-hoc groups of individuals to exercise the same rights of speech that individuals and media corporations already have. Ironically, it has nothing to do with making it easier for the wealthy to influence politics, and actually makes it possible for the middle class to have influence that they would otherwise never have. Before 2009, there was nothing stopping Michael Moore from self-funding a documentary about Bush's war crimes on advance of the election. Citizens United affirms that a group of people who, unlike Moore, aren't wealthy enough to produce an entire film individually could still pool their money together and produce that movie together. They could launch, say, an IndieGoGo campaign to produce their own version of Last Week Tonight, focused exclusively on the election. This is almost entirely orthogonal to education of the electorate, though to be honest, it's easier to make the argument that Citizens United makes it easier to educate the electorate than the other way around.