> If you believe [...] (Please note that there are several different people in this discussion. My opinion is not necessarily the same as wpietri's or wonderzo

> If you believe [...] (Please note that there are several different people in this discussion. My opinion is not necessarily the same as wpietri's or wonderzombie's.) I think that how well democracy works depends on all kinds of things. How well informed voters are is certainly one of them. Voters, being human beings, are demonstrably vulnerable to misinformation. Therefore, it is possible that taking measures to reduce misinformation may make democracy work better. And I am entirely at a loss to see how anyone can seriously regard this sort of position as not believing that democracy can "really work", whatever the hell that's meant to mean. > for such restrictions to be implementable, there must be a line defined somewhere. For sure. But how do you get from there to suggesting that anyone who thinks there should be some limits is somehow obliged to have a specific place where they think the line needs to go, still less obliged to tell you where that place is? > might reveal more about what these people are trying to accomplish (or not accomplish, as the case might be). Jiminy. > you're prohibiting me from pooling money with friends in order to send a message of our own. I'm not prohibiting anything, and the proposal I made would obviously not have the effect you describe -- and this sort of rhetoric is one reason why I don't in the least blame anyone who declines to answer your tell-me-where-the-line-goes demands. However: my suggestion is that you and your friends are welcome to send your money wherever you want, but that any single legal entity acting as a single entity only gets to play with as much money as a typical person could afford to use for influencing the political process. The sort of corporate activity that some people worry about is not remotely like you and your friends pooling some money.