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.

It was the 16th and 17th amendments which made most of the mess.

Long have i been familiar with the libertarian distaste for #16, but what's wrong with #17?

Also, the op only wants the USA back in the UK so there is a non-england territory that pulls it's own weight.

If i had to guess i'd say that before the 17th ammendment the Federal government legislature was voted for by the government legislature, which you could argue had two strong pros. (If your a libretarian).

1)  State and Federal Legislatures are going to be of one mind.  Congressmen aren't going to vote for building projects there governments don't want/block legislature there state govonors want.  Essentially to keep your job as a federal government employee, you MUST keep your state government happy.

You could argue that direct election of congressmen made the system more federal then even most federalists wanted back in the day.

2)  It prevents federal pandering, and reducing federal employees to "What can i give you" instead of "What is best for the country now"  (See Greece.)

A few things Kasz.

1) The comparison between political lobby groups and corporations is wrong. Political lobby groups are groups of individuals working towards a common political goal. Corporations are entities answerable to shareholders, they are not a group of individuals in the same way political groups such as the ACLU are.

2) There is the possibility of maintaining freedom of speech while limiting political campaigning. Many countries simply limit the amount of money allowed to be spent - while corporations can express a political opinion they cannot spend tens of millions of dollars trying to convert other people to share their opinion. While this does put a limit on freedom of speech the limit is not overly stringent and on the balance of things the minor loss of that freedom is worth the major gains in political freedom.

3) It's pretty obvious that quite a few politicians in the USA do answer to corporate lobby groups. For example it's how bills like SOPA, CISPA and PIPA keep popping up - the massive IP lobbies fund the politicians essentially in exchange for bills that protect their interests.


Hell even in NZ we're currently having scandals over campaign funding (of course on a much smaller scale - the corporate donation was only $15,000) and possibly going to end up to entirely tax payer funded political campaigning because of it.

A really strangely written thread.

But yes, I do think it should just be something like 1% tax, and all the government provides is protection from foreign invaders, and each other in the form of police.

1) Why?  Why are they different?  Political lobby groups have specific political goals.  Coporations have specific economic goals.  Economic goals are political when one group of politcians is going to hurt your buisness enviroment.

Also citizens united effected both equally.

2)  Except... as previously shown... there is no real loss of politcal freedom... and really what is and isn't overly stringent is simply a matter of opinion.  Freedom of speech hsouldn't ever rely soley on opinion.

3)  MANY people on these forums support stuff like SOPA, CISPA and PIPA... are they all in the pockets of corporate lobbying groups?  There are plenty of reasons to support such bills, espiecally if your some older senator who has your staff do 90% of your internet stuff and don't really understand the internet.