3 ms·
I think Lessig would be in favor of this. What he's proposing now is a more practical compromise that is less likely to be ruled unconstitutional. Practically
by Benjo 16y ago
I think Lessig would be in favor of this. What he's proposing now is a more practical compromise that is less likely to be ruled unconstitutional.
Practically speaking thought, how do you regulation how campaigns are funded? Ultimately a campaign is just a bunch of people talking to each other, which translates into free speech. Constitutional guarantees of free speech and the 14th amendment make it very difficult to restrict how a company can influence an election.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- Ardit20 16y agoI don't actually know how campaigns are funded, but we have a party system so I suppose they are funded through the party system. That is each individual or company can donate to the party. What does that have to do with free speech, we are talking about money. They can speak whatever they like and as freely as they like as can the companies. The companies can sponsor ads, or do whatever they like, just not give money to politicians or their party. And even if it infringes free speach not many things are absolute, even murdering someone has exceptions, such as self defence, soldiers, or a policeman for the prevention of crime. If the funding of political campaigns corrupts the entire system so fundamentally then maybe there should be an exception. But as I said funding hardly has anything to do with free speech, they can speak to each other as much as they like.