Comment by phpisthebest
3 years ago
>>Whoever came up with "companies donating millions to politicians is free speech so nothing can be done to limit that" is either a massive idiot or extremely biased towards big money influencing elections.
So Elon Musk wants to spend millions on politics it is OK, but if I and 10,000 of my friends want to form a corporation to spend millions it is idiotic??
And if you want to Limit Elon how do you get around the 1st amendment ?
Nope, do it the other way around. No political campaign can receive more than X money in donations / more than Y money of it's own funds, adjusted for inflation yearly, with highly public transparency lists on who donated to what campaign when.
Well then, that will only service to make the media the selector then, as who ever can get the most "free" media air time would win. What if I went all Bezo's and bought a newspaper or TV Station... What about the corporations that own those networks, Does every time they talk favorably about Biden count as a Campaign Ad?
I dont see how you can achieve that while maintaining a support free expression, unless of course you do not care about free speech?
This is already a solved problem in other countries, but of course unless you are for absolute free speech to weird extents like money is speech that means you don't care about free speech. Free speech in politics also means making sure everyone is heard, not only the richest/loudest participants.
You enforce that all media networks give similar time (and slots) to the different political candidates, treating time spent talking about a candidate or interviewing them separately from ad time.
OK. And what do we do about Pelosi's husband? What about his brother? What about his business partner who lives in another country? The primary issue with this line of thinking is that it simply makes things more difficult to track. The idea with the current system is that at least it's all out in the open.