4 ms·
Attacking campaign finance is not the way to go, because (a) it can't work, and (b) it's shooting ourselves in the foot by constraining our own right to speak.
by CWuestefeld 15y ago
Attacking campaign finance is not the way to go, because (a) it can't work, and (b) it's shooting ourselves in the foot by constraining our own right to speak.
Consider, all of you that moan about Citizens United: if it's wrong for a corporation to support a political position, then why are your cheering about what Wikipedia, reddit, Google, etc., have done to support the opposition to SOPA/PIPA?
And there's no way to stop monetary influence on politics. Even in the most draconian case, where all private funding to candidates was banned, with money coming from public coffers, there are countless backdoors. A CEO hoping for special treatment mind just mention something that turns out to make the politician a pile of money in stock trading, for example.
- Anechoic 15y agoBy "campaign finance" I'm referring to direct contributions to candidates (and promises of cushy jobs upon retirement). You're absolutely correct that corporations/unions/organizations can and should be able to support positions, but that doesn't have to be a direct benefit to a candidate in that way that campaign contributions are.
- te_platt 15y agoI don't think you can stop money affecting politics any more than you can stop piracy, or stop people from taking harmful drugs, or stop people from saying stupid things, or a lot of other things. In those cases I think the costs of stopping them outweigh the benefits. I just don't see any other way than constant vigilance.