3 ms·
It's strange how as soon as criminal money starts going into campaign funds, we all get up in arms about how corrupt and awful pay-to-play politics is. The sam
by vkou 4y ago
It's strange how as soon as criminal money starts going into campaign funds, we all get up in arms about how corrupt and awful pay-to-play politics is.
The same political conflicts of interest exist, regardless of whether the funding comes from a carbon Super-PAC, or a crypto con man... But you wouldn't be able to tell that from any of the blatantly partisan rhetoric around it. It's all very "We're not mad that campaign funding works the way it does, we're mad that the other guys got more of it."
- briHass 4y agoSure, but what do you do about it? I've never been able to formulate any rules that wouldn't have worse, unintended consequences. Running for a political office is essentially advertising yourself, and that takes gobs of money, existing fame, connections, or all of the above. Trying to limit 'who' can contribute is fraught with violations of free speech or picking and choosing the definition of what a 'company' vs an 'organization' is.
- landemva 4y agoI would go back to the Constitution that has a census to enumerate the people and expand the federal House of Reps, as intended. It would be so representative and so big they would meet on zoom or regionally. There would be way too many for the lobbyists to control them. 'The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative…” — U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 2, clause 3' As it is now, they decided to stop.growing the House because ... big bribes to the controlled-by-lobbyists Reps.