Quote:
Originally posted by smooth
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.
|
I've put no words in your mouth. You pointedly said that so long as the money doesn't end up in their pockets you don't see it being a problem.
The government has a responsibility to keep the political process free from unfair representation the current rules allow those with larger pocket books to freely garner more power and influence.