4 ms·
They probably would've supported the money is speech argument. They detested democracy as mob rule by ignorant uneducated common folk. Obviously tides have shi
by MacsHeadroom 6y ago
They probably would've supported the money is speech argument. They detested democracy as mob rule by ignorant uneducated common folk.
Obviously tides have shifted on democracy since the 1700s. But we don't need to revise history to argue that common folk should have a strong political voice.
- smolder 6y agoPure democracy for uneducated voters and removing limits on campaign finance (hinging on the argument that money is speech) seem like different issues to me. Related but different. I don't think disliking mob rule means liking what we have. Today we have unmitigated political spending aimed at manipulating and deceiving uneducated voters. We end up with voters less fit to vote and candidates less fit to lead. Any change you could make to put candidates on a level playing field where they aren't beholden to campaign funders could only make this country work better. The honest truth needs a chance to win over rhetoric. You're right though, I shouldn't project my views onto the founders just because I think they did a good job on the Constitution in the context of their time.