4 ms·
Well, a more cynical explanation might be that this money barrier constitutes a filter for keeping politicians who aren't bought out of the process. That is, it
by ambler0 15y ago
Well, a more cynical explanation might be that this money barrier constitutes a filter for keeping politicians who aren't bought out of the process. That is, it's a quite intentional state of affairs. Politicians who try to run honest campaigns are shut out of the process.
I don't know if anyone remembers 2000, but Nader wasn't even allowed in to watch the debates, let alone participate.
In my view, the only answer to all of this is 100% publicly funded elections.
- anamax 15y ago> In my view, the only answer to all of this is 100% publicly funded elections. And what are you going to do about newspapers that promote candidates? How about movies that promote a candidate or party? Can I make a sign and put it in my front yard with my money? How about if my neighbor and I decide to put up a bigger sign across the border between our lawns? Yes, I know, to make an omelet, you've got to break a few eggs. However, breaking eggs doesn't mean that there's going to be an omelet.
- Peaker 15y agoHow about disallowing political ads on TV and newspapers for a few months before election, except for publicly funded ones in secured slots for that purpose?
- skymt 15y agoAnd what about political TV programming and editorials? Should those be censored as well?
- Peaker 15y agoIn Israel, where I live, some forms of political speech in political TV programming and editorials is disallowed in the pre-election time period.
- learc83 15y agoThat would require a constitutional amendment: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."