4 ms·
This is reported on as if the loopholes allowing foreign money into US politics was not intentional in the first place. It would be quite simple to close these
by JohnGB 3y ago
This is reported on as if the loopholes allowing foreign money into US politics was not intentional in the first place. It would be quite simple to close these sorts of holes, but those in charge have generally made use of loopholes, and so are not about to close off their funding sources.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> reported on as if the loopholes allowing foreign money into US politics was not intentional in the first place It wasn’t. It’s literally illegal. > would be quite simple to close these sorts of holes How would you do it? What would be your coalition, i.e. which voting blocs would either turn out more or flip for this? Maybe you have something beyond reflexive cynicism. But when I hear peoples’ simple solutions to such policy problems, even setting aside the politics, it takes no more than minutes to structure a loophole. That doesn’t mean you’re corrupt or stupid. It means it’s a hard problem.
- cyanydeez 3y agoThe whole. PAC Universe is designed to wash the money of people and corporations.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> PAC Universe is designed to wash the money of people and corporations It’s a natural consequence of enabling unions, NGOs and—yes—-companies to participate in our political process. Banning PACs while e.g. letting the EFF or your block association organise politically is incredibly tricky.
- femiagbabiaka 3y agoSo tricky that we did it for 100 years? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tillman_Act_of_1907 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tillman_Act_of_1907
- JumpCrisscross 3y agoGood example. Tillman does not prohibit most PACs.