Just finished reading Dictator Handbook.
So, the catch is - it doesn’t matter for the politicians. They want to give those tax incentives to get re-elected. Whether it is proven or not is irrelevant as they will find another reason to do it.
So, the catch is - it doesn’t matter for the politicians. They want to give those tax incentives to get re-elected. Whether it is proven or not is irrelevant as they will find another reason to do it.
But as it is, you have the freedom to speak, to collaborate with others to speak, and to gather more resources to speak more effectively--and the government may not restrict you from doing so.
And what is the alternative? Allow the government to decide how much speech you may have? How much speech is worth? Catalog and index everyone's speech to ensure they aren't exceeding their quota? Disallow citizens from freely collaborating and associating for the purpose of speech? That's not freedom. We know where censorship leads.
One can recognize the drawbacks of big PACs and corporate political spending, while at the same time recognizing that those are natural consequences of liberty.
As they say, freedom of speech is the worst--except for the alternatives.
the same foundational principle applies to money in politics. a money-driven influence campaign is an exercise of power, not simply of speech (against the government), and that has tyrannical implications because the moneyed interests behind the campaigns seek political power over the rest of us.
to counter that, we insist on transparency in the exercise of any kind of power, including the people ultimately behind the money (no matter how removed). the danger of citizens united, as i understand it, is not that it sanctioned money in power, but that it did not required full and absolute transparency all the way down the line.
And not only citizens, but the government would know as well, for "full and absolute transparency" would not prevent the government from seeing and using such information. As we have already seen, the Executive can misuse federal agencies to impede the financial efforts of his political opponents, so granting that right would not seem wise.
For the same reason that we vote by secret ballot, not allowing citizens to spend their money secretly for political advocacy would also lead to a form of social tyranny. Consider Brendan Eich.
and scale matters. PACs with millions of dollars can exercise political power in a way that regular individuals cannot. the public needs to know who is exercising power (that it's in the form of spending money is incidental).
no one can (or should) protect you from all repercussions, and social pressure is better than (destabilizing) violence.
A statement so vague could justify anything.
> it's why we have 3 co-equal branches of government that must make their deliberations and decisions known to the public.
In fact, they aren't so required.
> and scale matters. PACs with millions of dollars can exercise political power in a way that regular individuals cannot. the public needs to know who is exercising power (that it's in the form of spending money is incidental).
You've ignored every point I've made and have repeated yourself.
> no one can (or should) protect you from all repercussions
An argument I did not make.
> and social pressure is better than (destabilizing) violence.
The former tends to cause the latter.
If you just want to speak without listening, you could write a blog.
And now, it's pretty easy for a foreign power to funnel dark money too, running ads on TV, while the rest of us losers are outside, shouting.
Foreign money is a serious problem, indeed. It's not the same problem, though. Hammer/nail, baby/bathwater, etc.
Because the Constitution starts with "We, the incorporated legal entities", not "We, the people".
Except that people in a corporation are there to pay rent and NOT exercise political speech. In fact, the political views in corporation's ownership can and often are the complete opposite of the "associated" persons, or employees. So why would a corporation be able to voice its opinion on behalf of the people in the said corporation?
What was the last time you specified your party affiliation during a hiring process? You didn't, because it's illegal in the first place. I know for a fact, that a major investor in the company I work for does not share my political views.
If I may use a colloquialism: wat.
You seem to have a very narrow view of what qualifies as a corporation.
I wish you would address the principled arguments I made regarding liberty instead of simply reasserting, "Corporations aren't people!"
Conversation is attained when both parties listen.
This is why I hardly bother having such discussions online anymore. No matter how reasonably and concisely I write, if I'm lucky, people will read the first and last lines before strawmanning and accusing me of being stupid, evil, or both.
If I may, I would suggest removing Hanlon's Razor from your interlocutory toolbox for a while.