|
|
|
|
|
|
by JumpCrisscross
574 days ago
|
|
|
> any time someone proposes limiting campaign finance or any other mechanism by which wealth becomes law some unfounded assertion gets made about how it will have unintended consequences Saying "directly or indirectly bribing" encompasses all democratic interaction. I indirectly bribe my electeds with votes when they do what I want. You need to be more precise than that language to make a point. More pointedly, your issue is with money in politics. Not bribery, which is already illegal. Not paid lobbying, I don't think, unless we should outlaw the EFF. Not rich people per se, most of whom have the sense to shut the fuck up. |
|
|
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was better thought out by a long way. I was being informal given this is HN.
We all know the moments in time when the public got knee-capped: Brooksley Born was highly on task preventing 2008 via her completely legitimate powers via the CFTC before Summers and Greenspan popped a cap in her ass.
The same is about to happen to Gary Gensler and worse Lina Khan.
This capture is a wratchet until it isn’t. And the Robespierre interlude is something we all hope to avoid.
You sir are clearly educated and astute and traveled, a cut above by far the typical HN apologist for contemporary Friedman shit.
If even you are willing to argue to the bitter end then I’m very sad about how brutal things will soon become.