makingmusic476 said:
Yeah, there's more competition, but the average persons' voice is made increasingly insignificant. It is as undemocratic as you can get. We should've been taking steps to remove money from politics, not pump more money in, so even poorer candidates have an equal chance of getting the public's attention as richer candidates. Publicly funded elections, for instance. Now it's just lobbying groups spending inordinate sums to get their preferred candidate elected, and they'll lie through their teeth to do so. Free speech shouldn't correlate with how rich you are. |
I have numerous problems with these statements.
1) Read Freakonomics. Money doesn't pick winners, it's the other way around. The money flocks to the candidates who are assumed to win.
2) It's not like there wasn't money in politics before these super-pacs, now it's more open (super-pacs must report all donations).
3) Publicly funded elections are bad news. If you consider how long the election period lasts in the United States, and how many elections there are (Presidential, Congressional, Governor, State Legislature, Mayoral, plus all the public servant roles), costs will rack up high.
4) Things won't become cheaper if the elections become publicly funded, if anything, the reverse will happen. There's a significant moral difference between choosing to donate your money to a candidate, rather than being forced to pay for all candidates through taxation.
5) Publicly funded elections don't stop anything. We have them in the UK, our defence secretary is still working with lobbyists, News Corp are still buying their way past competition laws, Goldman Sachs are still taking all the top positions in our central bank.
