3 ms·
I suppose it seems cool, since the fund pays back to the voters -- so it's effectively a tax on political influence against those who would spend a lot on a cam
by Redoubts 12y ago
I suppose it seems cool, since the fund pays back to the voters -- so it's effectively a tax on political influence against those who would spend a lot on a campaign. But I have to naively ask if this will really change anything. How will this divert money in politics away from directly buying off people in power. It seems like a new, parallel avenue to assault with big bucks.
- gipp 12y agoRead to the bottom -- it looks like the general idea here is to empower direct democracy. Less institutional power in the form of representational voting and beauraucratic/constitutional checks on each other means less attack surface for corruption.
- smsm42 12y agoDirect democracy is a very dangerous thing and unchecked can very quickly lead to oppression of minority contingents and minority opinions. And, of course, direct democracy is vulnerable to the base form of corruption in the form of "vote for us and we'll take money from the other guys and give it to you".
- Veedrac 12y agoThe whole point of this seems to be to avoid oppression of minority opinions by weighing in how much you care.