[Detrytus]

> 4. Congress may regulate money in politics;

This one is completely useless. Congress may regulate, but why would they? They directly benefit from more money in politics.

If anything this should be more direct, and read: "Political donations may only come from individual US citizens, and cannot exceed the amount of monthly minimum wage per person, per year".

Or maybe just add a field in the tax return form where anyone can name a party to receive some fixed amount donation, subtracted from person's taxes.

[moduspol]

Campaigns already have strong limits. They get around it by giving money to PACs, which can spend money opposing other candidates or talking about issues in particular.

Should there be limits on spending on messaging opposing a certain candidate? Or supporting / opposing a specific policy? It's going to be pretty tough to draw a line there that doesn't sound a lot like solidifying and entrenching the powers that already exist. And it usually includes an ugly way of determining what speech is "political" and what is not.

[comfydragon]

> Campaigns already have strong limits.

The SC decided today that political parties can spend as much money as they want in coordination with candidates.

[moduspol]

Do you expect this to result in much substantive change relative to before the ruling was made?

[JumpCrisscross]

> Congress may regulate, but why would they? They directly benefit from more money in politics

One, they have. Repeatedly.

Two, the reasons historically varied, but it tended to range from it being good for them when winning elections to most electeds being okay fundraisers and not wanting to compete with the great fundraisers.