Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel_
Your 2012 scenario can't happen, as I read things - there is still a ban on directly funding a candidate.
What could happen is all the ad slots in the debate going to McDonalds and them using them to say "Wasn't Palin great there? We're loving her".
In the UK, I don't know if it's law or convention, but companies do not directly advertise for or against politicians, but they are allowed to give money to parties for their own use.
Personally, I'd like to see a rule that says in effect "only an entity which can vote is allowed to give money to or spend money on influencing the political process". Democracy is about the voter expressing their opinions, so lets make the funding of democracy relate only to the contributions of voters.
|
Yeah thats how I understand it too Daniel, although with this ruling they might as well let candidates do it because in the end its kind of the same in my opinion.
I absolutely love your solution and I think that would actually be a great way to handle it, if your legally allowed to vote in the US you can contribute if not then you can't spend a dime, I like that. if only the courts saw it that way huh?
After my last post I got thinking about the issue a bit and I'm wondering how exactly is a "corporation" protected by the constitution anyway? Not allowing an individual to contribute would be a violation of his rights but how can intangible entity be guaranteed the same constitutional rights as a single person? I'd love to here the legal reasoning behind it because honestly I really don't understand it.