What is the difference between spending X amount of resources to run an ad on television aimed at getting people to vote for your favored candidate and spending X amount of resources to physically pick up and bus people to the polling place that are likely to vote for your favored candidate?
Do you think money should be the only resource that is limited under the law? Or are you legally going to punish and restrict one type of resource (money) while allowing unlimited usage of other resourecs (like ones time)? Should there be similar limits on the amount of volunteer time that a campaign can utilize or can be done in support of a camapaign?
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
I've found that the REAL reason that the Democrats are so up in arms over the Supreme court's decision on Citizens United is because they no longer have a monopoly on massive amounts of dirty money leveraging elections in their favor.
Unions have been doing what you just described for DECADES
You're argument FOR this is that you need a license to utilize your second amendment rights.
In between that, what you FAIL to see is that it's not about the license, in the 2A debate, but about being able to be identified as a person of sound mind with no criminal record, IE, someone less likely to use a gun for nefarious ends.
Now, I'm no anti 2A guy. But I gotta tell you, I KNOW you can produce a better argument than that.
In the meantime, I'm not so much again the CONCEPT of voter ID, as I am with the OP's determination of success, lol.
The judges are ONLY going ahead with this, because, and I quote, "It's too late now", lol.
Can you SMELL the win, lol?