4 ms·

Before this goes on too long, I'd like to stress that I don't have all the perfect answers in life. I don't think my views are perfect, but they are what I beli

by byuu 10y ago

Before this goes on too long, I'd like to stress that I don't have all the perfect answers in life. I don't think my views are perfect, but they are what I believe. I know that often, how things 'should' be require laws that are basically impossible to write. But I really don't think I am being that unreasonable to say there's something grossly unfair about one person being able to pour in millions of dollars into an election to sway votes his way. > Should newspapers (i.e. corporations) be allowed to endorse candidates? That's a definite gray area. I can see arguments for and against that. At least with a newspaper, people are actively choosing to buy it (barring it being in a vending machine with the endorsement on the front page.) It's usually pretty well known and clear that NYT runs liberal, and NYP runs conservative. I don't get that choice with giant billboards as I drive around town. You can argue I can change the channel, but I don't really get that choice with TV and radio ads, either. I'm sorry, but like with complex issues (eg abortion), I don't have a perfect answer for you on this point. Any choice is going to come with consequences. But that doesn't mean I think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater and have a cash free-for-all in our elections.

civilian 10y ago
Good answer. So, what we're really boiling down to, is that it's unfair that Peter Thiel has more influence than other people?
- byuu 10y ago
  Correct. That was what I was getting at with one vote, one person and buying more raffle tickets than another for a drawing. Money = votes, otherwise there wouldn't be so much money in play. It's not a true democracy when the rich (whether that be the Koch brothers or George Soros) indirectly get way more voting power than the lower and middle classes get. If people weren't swayed by obvious attack ads, then I wouldn't care how much money people wanted to throw away on elections. And indeed, they wouldn't throw any away, because it would be a total waste then.
  - inimino 10y ago
    There will always be ways to use a million dollars to promote a particular perspective. Maybe wealth inequality is what's really bothering you?
    - byuu 10y ago
      Yes. If everyone had the same amount of money, then we wouldn't have needed campaign finance laws. (We effectively don't have them now.) I'm not even advocating for everyone to have an exactly equal amount of money. Hard work should be rewarded. But I don't think there's anything the Koch brothers do that entitles them to hundreds of billions of dollars; when the poorest workers bust their asses for 80 hours a week and only earn $15,000 a year. That isn't a fair and just society. We can do much better. And we used to do way better. Income inequality has increasingly soared out of control for decades now.
didgeoridoo 10y ago
I sympathize with your sentiment, but I don't agree with your conclusion. Opening the door for the government to regulate opinions about the government seems, on its face, ripe for abuse of power. If we had wise angels permanently running the government, we could dispose of many precautions. But, since we don't, we should try to have laws where we would be safe from oppression even if our worst enemy took power.

by byuu 10y ago

civilian 10y ago

Good answer. So, what we're really boiling down to, is that it's unfair that Peter Thiel has more influence than other people?

byuu 10y ago
Correct. That was what I was getting at with one vote, one person and buying more raffle tickets than another for a drawing. Money = votes, otherwise there wouldn't be so much money in play. It's not a true democracy when the rich (whether that be the Koch brothers or George Soros) indirectly get way more voting power than the lower and middle classes get. If people weren't swayed by obvious attack ads, then I wouldn't care how much money people wanted to throw away on elections. And indeed, they wouldn't throw any away, because it would be a total waste then.
- inimino 10y ago
  There will always be ways to use a million dollars to promote a particular perspective. Maybe wealth inequality is what's really bothering you?
  - byuu 10y ago
    Yes. If everyone had the same amount of money, then we wouldn't have needed campaign finance laws. (We effectively don't have them now.) I'm not even advocating for everyone to have an exactly equal amount of money. Hard work should be rewarded. But I don't think there's anything the Koch brothers do that entitles them to hundreds of billions of dollars; when the poorest workers bust their asses for 80 hours a week and only earn $15,000 a year. That isn't a fair and just society. We can do much better. And we used to do way better. Income inequality has increasingly soared out of control for decades now.

didgeoridoo 10y ago

I sympathize with your sentiment, but I don't agree with your conclusion. Opening the door for the government to regulate opinions about the government seems, on its face, ripe for abuse of power. If we had wise angels permanently running the government, we could dispose of many precautions. But, since we don't, we should try to have laws where we would be safe from oppression even if our worst enemy took power.