Comment by Shinkei | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Shinkei | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I... uh... I don't know how to respond to this. Are you trying to argue a political ideology or do you genuinely believe the argument you've stated? It is provably false as other commenters have shown. So I don't know if you are just misinformed or you are trying to form an argument for a biased position.

In an ideal system, all voters would digest accurate information and make informed decisions, but we know this is not the case. Media has bias and political ads are misleading... plus people don't have the time or impetus to spend vast amounts of time 'sorting the wheat from the chaff.' Many people aren't even skeptics... which is a requisite for being able to filter the signal through that noise.

Yes, there is a strong free speech argument for donating money to campaigns, but make no mistake... oligarchs would (maybe already do?) run our country without any restrictions in place. Go read about Thomas Jefferson and the history of the estate tax before you try to argue this ideology because it is simply wrong and a danger to democracy.

> Yes, there is a strong free speech argument for donating money to campaigns, but make no mistake... oligarchs would (maybe already do?) run our country without any restrictions in place.

I think that the one thing that efforts at campaign finance limitations has done is underline that wealth is fungible power, and that restricting the manner in which it is premitted to be applied to politics does very little to limit the influence it has in politics.

I agree. It is a market system which will accomodate regulation and there is no perfect solution.

This. Its just like rich people gaming college admissions or yacht racing. Its basically an arms race. Money buys weapons. And when you put a limit on weapons, money buys training. And once you level that playing field, money buys freedom from other things.

If what you're saying is true, democracy is worthless. Decreasing the amplitude of political discourse would have no effect on the ignorance of the general population and their lack of skepticism and poor decision making. It would just create a new game of regulations that rich individuals could play around and avoid to get the result they want anyway.

It is not an uncommon belief that laws like BCRA were designed to entrench incumbents.

"The history of campaign finance reform is the history of incumbent politicians seeking to muzzle speakers, any speakers, particularly those who might publicly criticize them and their legislation. It is a lot easier to legislate against unions, gun owners, 'fat cat' bankers, health insurance companies and any other industry or 'special interest' group when they can't talk back." Jan Baran, a member of the Commission on Federal Ethics Law Reform

I agree with you. I mean consider 'single issue voters' as a perfect example of this failure of democracy. I consider my vote MUCH more thoughtfully than others, maybe that's bias... but in my defense I have a higher education, read many different news sources and discuss political issues with people who have contrarian viewpoints... if those things are worth nothing, then so be it.

And yet objectively, my vote is worth exactly the same as someone who is voting only to keep gay marriage illegal, let's say. I don't know if the policical discourse changes much except for that thin sliver of 'moderates' and swing voters... as emphasized in elections of late. People do change their ideologies--I've seen it. But it's a minority.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com