2 ms·
Except in your world the person with the most resources is the one that wins by default because they simply outspend everyone else, how is that righteous? Espec
by sensanaty 2mo ago
Except in your world the person with the most resources is the one that wins by default because they simply outspend everyone else, how is that righteous? Especially when we're not talking about individuals here, we're talking about corporations.
Besides your premise is flawed to begin with, you most certainly cannot freely rent out a billboard and put anything you want on there, or a radio ad, or a book printing. Restrictions on content already exist, and I see no reason why an exception should be made for political parties.
- elevation 2mo ago> the person with the most resources is the one that wins by default because they simply outspend everyone else As the heir apparent of the republican party, Jeb Bush raised a half-billion dollars from donors. He was politically connected, with a history of winning elections. His significantly outspent the other candidates -- and still lost. This isn't especially uncommon, money's influence alone doesn't determine elections.
- DangitBobby 2mo agoThat doesn't mean money doesn't tip elections, it just means sometimes money isn't enough. Anyone who has played a pay to win game could have told you that for free.
- sensanaty 2mo agoHow many people who weren't "heir apparents" of extremely wealthy families/parties ended up on the ballots, though? Basically every US election comes down to a choice between 2 uber-wealthy people, and sometimes a 3rd equally uber-wealthy one manages to break through with some votes. There isn't a chance in hell with the current system that anyone who doesn't come from a wealthy background, or at the very least has the backing of a rich sponsor, would make it anywhere near the top of the list, which is the entire issue.