← Back to context

Comment by carlosjobim

4 hours ago

Why should it be hard? It's something which should be completely unregulated in a free country.

Letting mega-billionaires spend mega-millions to buy the conversation around elections isn't my definition of freedom.

  • > Letting mega-billionaires spend mega-millions to buy the conversation around elections isn't my definition of freedom.

    Spell out the details: Exactly who will not be permitted to speak under your definition of "freedom"?

    If you say that only people with a billion dollars can be punished for speaking: Do you think the limit won't be lowered over time?

    If the issue is that no person should be able to spend more than N million dollars in one "conversation", how do you allocate broadcast licenses when the price in an auction would be more than N million?

  • Which people do you allow to work together for their political goals then, oh grand hacker?

    Do you understand the basics of a free society, which include freedom of association? You don't have much of a democracy left if you remove that.

    • America wasn't a democracy before the 2010 Citizens United ruling allowed corporations and wealthy donors to spend unlimited money on elections? That's news to me.

      I don't feel more free at all on account of that ruling. Maybe if you said "freedom" one or two more times, that would do the trick.

      2 replies →