- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
No. Sheldon Adelson is an individual with a lot of money and connections, that's all.
Money is too powerful in American politics. It needs to be taken out or minimized as much as possible.
classic strawman.
no one is arguing to remove anyone's right to free speech. i do not, however, support one person being able to purchase legislation, and neither should you.
classic strawman.
no one is arguing to remove anyone's right to free speech. i do not, however, support one person being able to purchase legislation, and neither should you.
Purchasing legislation is illegal, and should be.
Exercising ones right to spend their money as they wish, saying what they wish, and so forth is a fundamental necessity of freedom. Limit it, bar it, or whatever and we are no different then Iran and Cuba.
Reality-governmen is too powerful in american society. It needs to be minimized as much as possible
then we won't have to worry about billionaires buying the government since it won't be all that valuable to them
Absolutely. As long as people are allowed to donate such large amounts of money to political campaigns the ultra-rich will inevitably have much more power than they should with regards to our political system.
I agree that the government is indeed too powerful and needs to be minimized as much as possible. At the same time, that influence needs to be reduced steadily but gradually, the same way it was increased, or the unintended consequences will be many and varied.
A well-crafted model for eliminating money from politics could turn that money off more or less overnight.
and given they pay far more for funding they government, I don't see a problem with that
what I have a problem with is government is too big
I don't believe anyone should be able to donate to political campaigns. Money is the number one problem with politics. We should ban political ads like they do in the UK and if you want to run and are one of the main parties candidates the government should give you a small amount to run your campaign, allowing only specific expenses of course, and that will be that. They'll have to run off of their ideas and not be able to buy their way into office.
the problem is some entities will have more access and power-such as the MSM
yeah so rich guys will have an advantage.
the best thing to do is allow unlimited contributions but complete disclosures. I don't like given the MSM or unions that much power
Oh, they can't use their money either. Big part I forgot to add.
So, no one would have a money advantage; they would be running off of their ideas and not money.
the left whines about wealthy people buying government but its the left that made government so much bigger than it should be
No. The real problem is that the political system has to much power and influence over our lives, activities and private enterprise. If politicians lacked the power to peddle influence and grant favors, there would be no reason for anyone to attempt to influence them.
and thus MSM and the unions would have tremendous power
Wrong. The real problem is the human greed, anger, and envy that make government necessary in the first place.
It was human greed that led Europeans to engage in the practice of enslaving Africans for profit. It was government that put an end to that. It was human greed that led to the proliferation of counterfeit, contaminated, diluted, and decomposed drugs. It was government that put and end to that. It was human greed that led to the exploitation of young children for the sake of cheap labor. It was government that put and end to that.
The problem with your response is that although you correctly pointed out that government currently has too much influence over our lives, you failed to correctly identify the underlying cause of the problem. As a result of this, your response would have us believe that simply reducing the influence of government will solve the problem, and that simply is not true. While we do need to reduce government influence in some instances, it should be done in such a way that US citizens are protected from the power that wealthy people, which left unchecked, have to inflict unjust suffering on not only the citizens of the US, but the entire world as well.
It is certainly problematic that wealthy individuals currently have too much control over the political system. What is needed is effective mechanisms, e.g. laws, to limit that influence.
The people would have the most power. In my scenario, the vote would control the politicians, not billionaires and huge corporations.
Wrong. The real problem is the human greed, anger, and envy that make government necessary in the first place.
disagree. unions and the MSM will have tremendous power if "money is eliminated" from politics
Ah...it is human greed, anger, and envy that lead to government in the first place. :lol:
The voters could take that power back at any time. They just won't.The people would have the most power. In my scenario, the vote would control the politicians, not billionaires and huge corporations.
I don't know... let's ask George Soros.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?