“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”
- Alexander Hamilton. Spiritual father of #NeverTrump
No, once more you lie about what I said. Here's what I said:Bravo, just so. I have the right to spend millions of dollars on speech if I wish to. The existence of the right is independent of the exercise of it.
Yet then you state that people are currently denied the opportunity to spend money on speech because they don't spend millions, while others do.
It's not to anyone who is honest about what I said.That is argument is dependent upon the notion that the Existence of the right IS dependent on the Exercise of it.
Nonsense. When black people were threatened with violence if they tried to vote, they were effectively denied from exercising their vote. And when one poor person can't contribute more than .00000025% of what their rich neighbor can, they are effectively being denied the right to have their voice heard.Either Rights exist independent of their Exercise, or they do not.
I quoted and responded to you until it was blatantly obvious you were deliberately being dishonest about what I said, much like you've done many times before. I've caught you, on numerous occasions, continually posting lies you KNEW were lies and I had proven to you were lies. So when someone with a history like yours begins to fall into old patterns of dishonest posting, I tend to just ignore that person until they show some semblance of desire for honest discussion.Ironic, coming from the man who refuses to even fully quote the individual he is responding to, much less actually respond to him.
So this is your chance to redeem yourself. You, once more, posted lies about what I said and I have, once more, corrected them into what I actually said. Let's see if you have the decency to respond to what I actually have said and not the lies you pretended I said. It's your move.
Sheesh, the point is unlimited contributions benefits those with (effectively) unlimited amounts to contribute to the political process. You support this, then wish for a system that doesn't exercise power in favor of the wealthy who can spend unlimited funds to elect politicians who will predictably exercise power in favor of their sugar daddies.
It makes no sense to me. Please explain how unlimited donations reduce the likelihood politicians will serve those with unlimited funds.....
The top three industries for Cruz are, in order, oil and gas ($1,086K), lawyers ($996k), and Wall Street (878k)....
there are reforms we can make that allow for maximum freedoms of the citizenry while simultaneously addressing valid concerns of "too much money in politics" and the corrupting factors it most certainly has.
for examples, we can allow for unlimited contributions, but restrict campaign expenditures by candidates..we can even make reforms that hides the identity of the contributor( so the candidate doesn't know whom is bribing him/her)... we can forbid collusion between campaigns and external entities whom would campaign on their behalf.
we can improve ,strengthen ,and enforce "truth in advertising" laws when it comes to political ads ( and hopefully impose hefty fines on dishonest ads).
we can provide for a mechanism that takes contributions, in excess of limits imposed on specific campaigns, and moves them directly into the general fund.
( for example.. if we say " a presidential campaign can spend 200 million".. but the candidate , and his official pacs, received 500 million... we then throw the other 300 million into the general fund and call it a day.)
there's an endless list of reforms we can enact that do no include screwing with the citizens right to their speech
....and it basically comes down to restricting the actions of candidates and office holders rather than restricting the actions of the populace.