3 ms·
Then support public funds plus a ban on all private funds for elections. For example, look at the recent senate campaign in CA, Boxer vs Fiorina. Boxer spent
by earl 15y ago
Then support public funds plus a ban on all private funds for elections. For example, look at the recent senate campaign in CA, Boxer vs Fiorina. Boxer spent $28MM and Fiorina $22MM [1]. The math is you must raise $2.8e7 / (52 * 6) = $89,743 PER WEEK for your entire term to finance your next campaign. There's simply no way that comes without strings.
[1] http://flapsblog.com/2010/12/03/ca-sen-barbara-boxer-outspends-carly-fiorina-in-senate-race/ http://flapsblog.com/2010/12/03/ca-sen-barbara-boxer-outspen...
- yummyfajitas 15y agoYou'll probably also need to support a new constitutional amendment: Amendment 28 - Congress may now pass a law abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, and the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. But they should only do this to prevent rich people that I don't agree with from expressing their opinions on elections.
- evgen 15y agoHow about this: Amendment 28: Money != speech. Corporations are not individuals and do not have the same rights as citizens. Gee, that was pretty easy.
- yummyfajitas 15y agoAmendment 29: lawn signs != speech. Lawn signs are not individuals, and therefore do not have the same rights as citizens. Corporations, much like lawn signs, computers, etc, are property. They have no rights. Their owners do. To quote Kennedy: When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought... Which people are you trying to prevent from hearing George Soros's or David Koch's message?