2 ms·

> I don't think that the degree to which an individual has a right to reek redress of grievances is determined by the amount of money they can spend. I mean, I

> I don't think that the degree to which an individual has a right to reek redress of grievances is determined by the amount of money they can spend. I mean, I agree, but money is going to buy influence whether you believe in some sense of noble politics or not. Without severely and arbitrary restricting even more rights it's impossible to get around this. Those with more money can make friends with influencers, buy advertising space, produce media, etc, at far greater rates. Even without direct lobbying, they're going to be more influential > There is a restriction on how much an individual can give to any given non-profit. Or perhaps there would be restrictions on what percent of the PACs spending comes from any one person. It is illegal for non-profits to collaborate to bypass these rules (in the similar way to how it is illegal for corporations to collaborate to fix prices). No there isn't. There's just taxes on contributions if you give more. > - A non-profit can spend as much as they want on politics as long as the money comes from individuals. I already gave a few ways around this legislation above.

harimau777 7y ago
I think that I explained myself poorly. I was trying to describe a starting point for a system that would be less easy to work around. We're never going to be able to eliminate every abuse of the law, but I think a valid strategy might be to try to make it so that the abuse doesn't scale. So for instance, a corporation could still have their executives donate to PACs and they could create dozens of PACs in order to be able to donate more overall. However, there is a limit to how many executives and PACs they can juggle so it at least doesn't scale the way the current abuses do.
- tathougies 7y ago
  > So for instance, a corporation could still have their executives donate to PACs and they could create dozens of PACs in order to be able to donate more overall. However, there is a limit to how many executives and PACs they can juggle so it at least doesn't scale the way the current abuses do. Nah, someone will just offer a service to those executives to manage their PAC contributions. But, I mean, job creation is great, so I guess that makes sense.

harimau777 7y ago

I think that I explained myself poorly. I was trying to describe a starting point for a system that would be less easy to work around. We're never going to be able to eliminate every abuse of the law, but I think a valid strategy might be to try to make it so that the abuse doesn't scale. So for instance, a corporation could still have their executives donate to PACs and they could create dozens of PACs in order to be able to donate more overall. However, there is a limit to how many executives and PACs they can juggle so it at least doesn't scale the way the current abuses do.

tathougies 7y ago
> So for instance, a corporation could still have their executives donate to PACs and they could create dozens of PACs in order to be able to donate more overall. However, there is a limit to how many executives and PACs they can juggle so it at least doesn't scale the way the current abuses do. Nah, someone will just offer a service to those executives to manage their PAC contributions. But, I mean, job creation is great, so I guess that makes sense.