you support if not a persons ability to spend whatever they want to try and influence a particular vote. You have yet to prove that those efforts are successful
Whether it is a Bush dynasty or a Clinton dynasty, it does not matter who ends up in power, We The People will not be represented in the way that we were meant to be.
Money determines the outcome of political races. The slack jawed yokels watch the slick advertising campaigns that it buys and vote accordingly, and you know it. It doesn't matter whether the money is from Soros or Koch, it still buys elections and therefore favorable treatment in the halls of Congress.
And it does no good to say, "but if people weren't so stupid, if only they wouldn't pay attention to the ads." That's like saying, "but if only people used common sense." They don't, and that's a fact of life Further, whining that "liberals do it too," while true, does nothing to address the real issue, which is the influence of money on politics.
And, until that issue is addressed, purchasing political influence will still be a good investment.
Can't we just turn Congress off and then turn it back on again?
I support speech, I don't necessarily support the viewpoint that money is speech.
If we can accept that advertising is successful, we can easily extrapolate that advertising for political positions or candidates would be successful.
"The side that stays within its fortifications is beaten." ~Napoleon