[everforward]

> When did I ever argue that it should?

You didn’t, but I would also presume that reason dictates solutions be practical. Modifying the First Amendment is so far out of the Overton Window that I struggle to even call it a potential solution.

> But you could go read Davis and the other case history about the undue restrictions and how a candidates own speech is constrained by matching schemes.

That is not what Davis says; I would encourage you to re-read it or perhaps read it for the first time. Davis doesn’t even have to do with matching schemes, it has to do with differing contribution limits from third parties depending on a candidates own spending.

It’s still profoundly dumb, to the point where I feel worse off for having read it. Apparently a candidate being wealthy enough to bankroll orders of magnitude more funding than an opponent does not create “an appearance of corruption”, despite magnitudes of evidence on how effective advertising is. Alito was either an idiot or corrupt; probably the latter given his rank.

[giantg2]

"Modifying the First Amendment is so far out of the Overton Window that I struggle to even call it a potential solution."

So too with the court reform suggestion.

"Davis doesn’t even have to do with matching schemes,"

No, but it is the case law that the appeals court felt compelled to follow with respect to matching schemes and later upheld in the combined appeal.

"Apparently a candidate being wealthy enough to bankroll orders of magnitude more funding than an opponent does not create “an appearance of corruption”, despite magnitudes of evidence on how effective advertising is."

If it's that effective and leading to poor outcomes, then regulate it like tobacco ads instead of forcing additional funding to a broken system. The majority of the political ads are intentionally deceptive anyways. We shouldn't be figuring how we can equitably fund the continuation of this shit, but how to reduce it overall.