3 ms·
> I'm not arguing that we have to like this current situation, but it's hard for me to think of a better scenario that doesn't infringe on the rights of people
by Florin_Andrei 15y ago
> I'm not arguing that we have to like this current situation, but it's hard for me to think of a better scenario that doesn't infringe on the rights of people to assemble as a group and voice their opininon via financial support
That's not a "right". That's a disease. Money in politics is the ultimate source of evil in western democracies. That is the beast that needs starving. That is the thing that needs systematic dismantling.
- JunkDNA 15y agoThe rights I was referencing are freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. My point is that it is extremely difficult to remove money from politics and still allow these. Let's say you and I want to start a movement to influence our representatives to get the money out of politics. How do we do that as a team if we can't pay for advertising, a website, adwords, phone calls, etc...? That stuff costs money. period. It's not enough to say candidates can't spend money directly, but private citizens can. That just pushes the candidate spending to shadow groups that are really just mouthpieces for the candidate (e.g. Super PACs). I'm asking this question genuinely. How do we do it and not make a hash of a bunch of other rights? I'd love to see a workable solution, the country would be better off if there could be one.
- Florin_Andrei 15y agoI never said it would be an easy transition. For starters, all political campaigns should be financed from a "single payer" system. You, Joe Schmoe, want to contribute money to politics? Sure, here's the big barrel, drop your cash in it, and we'll divide it up between all candidates.