3 ms·

Are campaign finance limits taking away people's political rights? I suppose they are, relative to unlimited rights, but I still think they are necessary becaus

Are campaign finance limits taking away people's political rights? I suppose they are, relative to unlimited rights, but I still think they are necessary because they they tilt the balance toward democracy instead of plutocracy. For the same reason, I'm opposed to unlimited in-kind contributions, and also to censorship and "reverse boycotts".

nobody9999 6y ago
>Are campaign finance limits taking away people's political rights? I suppose they are, relative to unlimited rights, but I still think they are necessary because they they tilt the balance toward democracy instead of plutocracy. Actually, I think campaign finance limits expand political rights as it gives more people a more equal say. In fact, I support banning campaign contributions altogether and moving to publicly financed campaigns. Because that not only gives more people a more equal voice, it also gives more people the opportunity to run competitive campaigns without deep-pocketed supporters and/or deep-pocketed political parties. >For the same reason, I'm opposed to unlimited in-kind contributions, and also to censorship and "reverse boycotts". I'm also opposed to the first two. Quite strongly, in fact. As to the first, I have no problem with volunteering (time is a resource and, as such, could be considered an "in-kind" contribution but I'm okay with that) or using one's own resources (cars, phone minutes, electricity, etc.) while volunteering, but not much beyond that. As to the second, censorship (that is, government censorship) is always wrong. However, private persons or groups have every right to control their freedom of association and the speech they allow on their property. However, I'm not really clear on what you mean by a "reverse boycott." I'll hazard a guess that you mean multiple product/service providers refusing to do business with a specific customer. If that's what you mean, I'm not sure I can fully agree. Not because I don't believe in freedom, but just the opposite. Because forcing anyone to associate with someone they don't want to associate with (within the limits set out for protected classes[0]) reduces the freedom of those being forced. And I believe that to be especially true when it comes to political actors and issues. Primarily because forcing someone to support political speech/beliefs/actions with which they disagree is an affront to our free society and the ideals of free association and political choice. My apologies If I misunderstand how you define "reverse boycott," and I'd appreciate being corrected. Thanks. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group Edit: Added the missing link.

nobody9999 6y ago

>Are campaign finance limits taking away people's political rights? I suppose they are, relative to unlimited rights, but I still think they are necessary because they they tilt the balance toward democracy instead of plutocracy. Actually, I think campaign finance limits expand political rights as it gives more people a more equal say. In fact, I support banning campaign contributions altogether and moving to publicly financed campaigns. Because that not only gives more people a more equal voice, it also gives more people the opportunity to run competitive campaigns without deep-pocketed supporters and/or deep-pocketed political parties. >For the same reason, I'm opposed to unlimited in-kind contributions, and also to censorship and "reverse boycotts". I'm also opposed to the first two. Quite strongly, in fact. As to the first, I have no problem with volunteering (time is a resource and, as such, could be considered an "in-kind" contribution but I'm okay with that) or using one's own resources (cars, phone minutes, electricity, etc.) while volunteering, but not much beyond that. As to the second, censorship (that is, government censorship) is always wrong. However, private persons or groups have every right to control their freedom of association and the speech they allow on their property. However, I'm not really clear on what you mean by a "reverse boycott." I'll hazard a guess that you mean multiple product/service providers refusing to do business with a specific customer. If that's what you mean, I'm not sure I can fully agree. Not because I don't believe in freedom, but just the opposite. Because forcing anyone to associate with someone they don't want to associate with (within the limits set out for protected classes[0]) reduces the freedom of those being forced. And I believe that to be especially true when it comes to political actors and issues. Primarily because forcing someone to support political speech/beliefs/actions with which they disagree is an affront to our free society and the ideals of free association and political choice. My apologies If I misunderstand how you define "reverse boycott," and I'd appreciate being corrected. Thanks. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group Edit: Added the missing link.