3 ms·

Their political ideas aren't their own, and I highly doubt they would put so much of their resources into them if there wasn't a large base of support there alr

by webXL 12y ago

Their political ideas aren't their own, and I highly doubt they would put so much of their resources into them if there wasn't a large base of support there already. Government spending in the US as a percentage of GDP has almost flatlined since the early 90s. There was a spike recently, but the previous growth wasn't really sustainable with the quasi-free-market economy everyone (at least in the US) seems to prefer. The Soros' and Kochs' of the world are everywhere and always influencing things in both directions. I don't think this is a valid concern given the balance of power in our governments.

nemo 12y ago
Many people have various political views. Allowing people with huge buckets of cash to use that cash to gain increased representation is fundamentally wrong. A representative government is supposed represent all of its constituents equally, but with the current pay-to-play/pay-to-propagandize/pay-to-astroturf regime it doesn't. We can't actually say with any degree of certainty that that the buckets of cash influencing politics are balancing out, since we haven't got a pristine state of thing to compare the current mess against, and there's plenty of evidence to suggest that huge buckets of cash have swayed things on many issues against the interests of the general public.
- webXL 12y ago
  > A representative government is supposed represent all of its constituents equally Yes, "supposed to", but the representation comes through the voting process, and not everyone votes, so they really represent the voters. And I assume you mean the voters are swayed by the advertising that buckets of cash pay for, since outright bribes are illegal. The politician who rewards campaign contributors at the expense of voters is thrown out the next election. There's a check or power built into the system, but a lot of the time the new guy is bought off too. Usually the more competition and transparent the industry, the harder it is to buy off a politician. The less power a political office has, the less it will be bought off. There are all sorts of ways to fix this problem without limiting political speech.
  - nemo 12y ago
    "The politician who rewards campaign contributors at the expense of voters is thrown out the next election." [citation needed]
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > A representative government is supposed represent all of its constituents equally Supposed by whom? Certainly, even ignoring ways in which the practice deviates from the overt design, the US government doesn't even pretend to be structured in a way in which all citizens have equal representation.

by webXL 12y ago

nemo 12y ago

Many people have various political views. Allowing people with huge buckets of cash to use that cash to gain increased representation is fundamentally wrong. A representative government is supposed represent all of its constituents equally, but with the current pay-to-play/pay-to-propagandize/pay-to-astroturf regime it doesn't. We can't actually say with any degree of certainty that that the buckets of cash influencing politics are balancing out, since we haven't got a pristine state of thing to compare the current mess against, and there's plenty of evidence to suggest that huge buckets of cash have swayed things on many issues against the interests of the general public.

webXL 12y ago
> A representative government is supposed represent all of its constituents equally Yes, "supposed to", but the representation comes through the voting process, and not everyone votes, so they really represent the voters. And I assume you mean the voters are swayed by the advertising that buckets of cash pay for, since outright bribes are illegal. The politician who rewards campaign contributors at the expense of voters is thrown out the next election. There's a check or power built into the system, but a lot of the time the new guy is bought off too. Usually the more competition and transparent the industry, the harder it is to buy off a politician. The less power a political office has, the less it will be bought off. There are all sorts of ways to fix this problem without limiting political speech.
- nemo 12y ago
  "The politician who rewards campaign contributors at the expense of voters is thrown out the next election." [citation needed]
dragonwriter 12y ago
> A representative government is supposed represent all of its constituents equally Supposed by whom? Certainly, even ignoring ways in which the practice deviates from the overt design, the US government doesn't even pretend to be structured in a way in which all citizens have equal representation.