2 ms·

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

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.