4 ms·
The system is a two party stable oligarchy anyway. We more or less publically fund parties in Europe. Why does the private sector, whether individuals or co-op
by aj700 16y ago
The system is a two party stable oligarchy anyway.
We more or less publically fund parties in Europe. Why does the private sector, whether individuals or co-operating individuals have a right to fund/corrupt officials and influence policy? If hard money is wrong, soft money should be too. Making it an issue ad is a stupid, inconsistent loophole. Toby Ziegler's been through all this anyway.
It's simply not normal for corporations to give millions to parties and issue groups outside America. And the principle may be arguable, but the effects are clearly appalling.
on point 2, I'm not saying there should be enforced, pre-emptive speech control. But if the system were human instead of automated, someone could have pointed out to the domain owner that they'll probably have to seize it anyway if they use it for that purpose. Of course, I'm expecting far too much intelligence and concern for the customer from a dumb (ie efficient) system.
- CWuestefeld 16y agoA fair reply, thanks. Maybe we're not so different as the initial disagreement would show. The system is a two party stable oligarchy anyway. I've been saying this forever. DEM and GOP are just two sides of the same coin, with barely a hair's breadth of difference between them. If hard money is wrong, soft money should be too. Logically that makes sense, but I'm arriving at a different solution than you. I think that the freedom of speech (together with some others, like self-defense, property rights, and freedom to engage in contracts) are paramount. Because our system is fundamentally designed to guarantee natural rights, but only incidentally democratic, when rights and voting are in tension, it should be the freedom of speech that wins over electoral procedures.