|
> For instance, the fact that the latest Supreme Court Justice was backed by $25 million "dark money" is a spit in the face of democracy. Okay, let's break this down a bit. What you're saying is: 1. A private individual (or collection of private individuals; we don't know) spent $25m promoting their views about an important political issue of the day. 2. This is bad. That's an interesting argument, but do keep in mind that you're describing is about as pure exercise of the first amendment as you're likely to find. The founders would recognise a wealthy, powerful individual using the best communication technology available to spread their views, possibly anonymously, because that's precisely what they did, and precisely what they aimed to protect. Even if you think it's a good idea not to let people have an unrestricted voice to speak about political topics (and I'm unconvinced, to say the least), that's super not going to happen in the US of all places. > He should have been investigated immediately over that by the FBI/an anti-corruption agency. Investigated for what? Unless you're imagining some sort of blatant, explicit quid pro quo, any law you're hoping to find a violation of would itself be ridiculously unconstitutional. Campaign finance reform is a great idea, but you need to keep in mind that in the US you can restrict money donated to campaigns, but you can't restrict money spent speaking about political issues. (Which I think is probably for the best, given how many people would like to silence Greenpeace, the ACLU, pro-choice groups, the New York Times, etc., etc. Especially these days...) |
They also used the best weapons available at the time and aimed to protect their ownership by individuals. That doesn't mean they either foresaw the development of nuclear weapons or would approve their ownership by individuals.