3 ms·
Problem is that first thing directly leads to corruption, so it's a rather poor excuse, and in practice simply legitimizes it.
by shmerl 7y ago
Problem is that first thing directly leads to corruption, so it's a rather poor excuse, and in practice simply legitimizes it.
- tptacek 7y agoBy the logic this tossed-off comment employs, deploying any money whatsoever to help someone get elected, even paying Kinkos for signs, or a website hosted out of an S3 bucket, even for a grassroots reformer underdog candidate, "directly leads to corruption". Do you have an argument that would be persuasive to someone who didn't think the entire concept of a market economy leads inexorably to political corruption?
- shmerl 7y agoI'm not looking to persuade those, who think that buying power is good for society, they pretty much support corruption by design. This is addressed to those who oppose corruption, but didn't realize, Citizens United enables it on huge scale.
- tptacek 7y agoThat's fine and coherent, but we should recognize that there are two wildly different conversations happening here, because the users of this site broadly favor the notion of market economies --- if not for, like, health care, then at least things like "sign printing" --- and most of them will not read your argument in the "markets are inherently corrupt" frame you intend them.
- egdod 7y agoPlease describe for me what your ideal rules would be for political contributions and/or expenditures.