|
|
|
|
|
|
by s1artibartfast
38 days ago
|
|
|
That seems to contradict you position above where speech is free and money isn't speech. That said, I think it's a position that someone could take that they'll political speech should be limited when it involves money, provided they are honest about it. I do think it would give more power to those who owned the megaphones, but maybe that's worth it. That said, I don't think that pac spending are that big of a problem. The bigger problem is lobbying, aka the sharing of thoughts and ideas with politicians to educate them and inform their positions. |
|
|
Speech is free, as in part of freedom, so speech should not be regulated by the government.
Spending money to amplify speech is not a right or a freedom, it should be heavily regulated.
> That said, I don't think that pac spending are that big of a problem
Look at aipac, there are only a handful of politicians who don’t take their money (or how every you want to phrase pac money being spent on you “independently”). And yet something like 60% of americans have an unfavorable view of israel. If those politicans taking aipac money take the wrong position on israel, that money disappears, and goes to an opponent of theirs. That’s just lobbying. Pac money is lobbying.