| The reason I used the word principly is because they are the same thing in principle, the current law is insufficient to treat the issue appropriately, which is what makes it unjust. A foreign politician who is popular will generate free advertising showcasing the merits of his endorsed position through news media coverage of his statements. Take money out of the equation entirely. I am a rich filthy corrupt CEO who owns a giant media corporation. I contribute 0 dollars to your campaign, but my TV channel has reporters singing your praises daily. My newspapers write about you in positive terms. My interns spend time on social media defending you from critics. Everything I have done for you has helped get you elected. My news channel and publications are read by millions. You now owe me. Similarly, a politician from another place who is very popular in your constituency shows up and campaigns for you. You pay nothing for it, but thousands show up to listen to him. His speech is aired to millions in your constituency. Eventually you are elected, now you owe him. Not accounting for some money is principly the same as not accounting for an endorsement by the President of the United States. The same negative outcomes that are associated with money in politics can be applied to endorsements too. Existing laws do not address this, and are thus unjust because they are outdated in the context of how news and discourse works in 2018 |