Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
So, just because the money doesn't go into their pockets it can't possibly influence them? Allowing people to have a "minimum airspace" to make their points known will somehow counter the influence that can be exerted by groups spending tens of millions? Not likely.
These groups make it too easy to buy influence. That's one of the main reasons campaign finance reform was championed and that's what's being subverted. This Presidential election will have more spending on advertising than any in history and the spend will only grow in the future.
|
I'm not in for countering the influence groups who spend tens of millions of dollars in our current economy.
If you don't like it, start supporting socialism or communism (which I would prefer).
But your current stance undermines and contradicts, in my opinion, your current support for our capitalist economy.
I would also prefer you not put words in my mouth. I'm not doing it to you. I didn't say that candidates can't be influenced by other people campaigning on their behalf.
If you think it will, why not just type: "allowing other people to campaign on a candidate's behalf will influence him or her just as much as putting the money in his or her pocket because..."
As it stands, you haven't provided any support for that assertion. I don't believe they influence candidates equally, but I certainly didn't say that, either. The more important point, to me, is whether the government has a right to restrict people from spending money in the political arena when it doesn't directly amount to a pay-off. I don't think it does. That's one of the side-effects of living in a capitalist society that holds freedom of political speech and action as one of its highest values.
I think the benefits outweigh these costs. I support equalizing the field by providing guarantees and opportunities, not by placing restrictions on actions.