[unityByFreedom]

Cool. I wonder where Altman stands on Citizens United and the aftermath that is super PACs. A big problem to me is how to keep money out of politics wherever possible.

I guess this would fall under his "fair government" policy, although I don't see it explicitly mentioned.

Do libertarians support having super PACs? That would be yikes to me.

Unless that is a primary issue for a candidate, I don't see how we'll ever get back to fair government, with one person one vote. There's just too much money in it already.

[dantheman]

Citizens United is very clear - it's about free speech. if the New York times wants to release a documentary about a candidate before the election would you stop them?

Libertarians, of course, support super PACS, people do not lose their ability to speak when they form a group.

To illustrate this point imagine 2 people: a famous movie star and a wealthy movie producer. When the famous person speaks it is news and spread freely, whereas the producer needs to pay to get their message out. If you restrict one, you should restrict the other.

[unityByFreedom]

We still have limits on donating directly to candidates.

More dollars going to super PACs devalues people's votes. I think it's producing lousy candidates so I would support a law for enforcement that would bring us back to the time when we didn't have super PACs. I understand you disagree. That's fine.

[ZenoArrow]

> "Citizens United is very clear - it's about free speech."

The problem that people have related to Citizens United is that, in the current system, money = free speech.

This isn't about freedom from persecution, unless you count corporations as people.

[laser]

To be contrarian for a second, perhaps there isn't enough money in politics? Look how much candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump were able to raise directly from constituents, despite being snubbed by big money. What if we give more direct democratic funding tools to the public, like vouchers, to counteract corporate interests, other special interest groups, and the rich? Restricting political expenditure seems like a fundamental violation of free speech, but getting more public money into politics to counteract concentrated interests seems like a completely viable solution?

[unityByFreedom]

I don't think you'll ever remove money from politics entirely. But I do think it has gotten out of hand, and somewhat criminal, in recent years. I won't say more than that, lest I rant about current politics.