Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
If one could make the argument that the excess of campaign contributions undermines the basis of democracy by putting disproportionate ability to influence outcomes in the hands of the few.
It simply requires acknowledgement of the economic realities of the day, to then realize that it is indeed a "speech" activity that is damaging to national discourse.
Apparently there is a proposal for a 27th Amendment on Citizens United floating around out there.
|
No you couldn't... that's a stupid arguement, largely because everyone still has the right and ability to vote and nobodies point of view is being denied.
The basis of your arguement is "Excessive Free speech is wrong."
I mean, is that really the arguement you want to make?
Outside which, acknowledge the economic realities of the day? Only if you ignore economists.
If you ask economists, they'll mostly tell you that this ISN'T a problem and that corproate money follows popularity, not the other way around.
All the economic research tends to show big money holds seemingly no effect in head to head campaigns. You need a certain amount of money to compete.... but after that it's mostly fluff where HUGE amounts of money are essentially wasted for a very negligable amount of votes.
http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01/17/how-much-does-campaign-spending-influence-the-election-a-freakonomics-quorum/
|
But if its so obviously negligible, why is everyone doing it? You'd figure with companies so worried about the economy, verifiably wasteful rent-seeking would be eliminated. This money's flipping aroound for some reason...
Granted, i shouldn't question this too much. I've got an interview with one campaign group, and a fairly promising application in with another...
|
A few resons.
First off, I said it was of negiligable use to the races, not to the companies. You do need a certain amount of money... though that amount of money can really be gotten from either side of any issue and polticians don't want to spend that money themselves.
Extra money thrown on top of that is more or less a way for different companies to try and get a meeting or two about certain legislation in the future for whenever the guy is in political office.
I mean, why else do so many companies donate to campaigns that are sure losers?
Plus i feel like a lot of candidates feel like it does matter. If only because it's easier to blame money, then it is personal fault or fault in ideology.
Bill Gates and the Walton family could put all there money towards Hulk Hogan for President... and Hulk Hogan isn't gonna win.
