First, your attempt at a strawman, of putting me wanting only the rich or the corporate…show me any place where I even hinted at something like that…one should be cognizant that such attempts at manipulation in an effort to win a debate are rather off-putting at best. So…Go ahead, show me... I presume you will just skip this, best to forget the maladroit, the indelible internet air ball.
Freedom...Janitor and CEO equal voice in government...?? They have equal voice at the polls, beyond that nothing is to be assured as that is hardly freedom. That would be an artificial imposition.
Freedom is the opportunity to attain whatever voice one cares to strive to achieve in our polity. Its like burger flipping, good honest job, one can take pride in it, but it is not equivalent to the doctor operating on a ruptured appendix … now a talented and hard working janitor can take his talents wherever it is his capacities and luck will allow. Instance, Alan Grayson [D, FL], a pol who I do not particularly enjoy, but do admire the fact that he put himself through Harvard working as a night watchman and janitor… he has earned his voice… nobody deserves a microphone just because they were born with a mouth, one has to strive, has to devise a way to be heard above the din of all the others… that is not a right, the right is the opportunity to pursue.
Sorry, but you seem totally unaware of your own socialist tendencies in this thread.
Let’s stretch your “thoughts” out a bit….So should we, to allow this "fairness" upon which our freedom is supposedly predicated, should we do this in every instance…? We would for there to be that true freedom, if taking your logic a little further down its own line, right? So, we should all be publicly funded if we want to start a business, so it will be fair…again, all of us, right? And to get a car, to be fair, we should all be publicly funded, for a house, for college, for food, for…
For ...Total Nonsense.
We have to take back the power. There are more of us, the Tea Parties have been an attempt to go around the establishments of both the heads, its why so much scorn is heaped upon them by both the heads and MSM...and government [read: IRS et al].
1. You have given up so let’s have an illusion instead.
2. Nobody threw anything out but you.
3. An argument pushed to inevitable absurdity due to your poor, impossibly absurd, premise.
4. Rubio, Rand Paul and Cruz have done it, bucked the establishment…Johnson was unable using obviously tepid and ineffective methods.
5. Obviously knowledge of the actual schematics would require that an idealistic belief that public control over the system would make the system somehow better only belies a simple socialistic dream…you are a dreamer…Imagine that.
6. Should probably also work on your then and thans, your and you’res…just saying…
Get there firstest with the mostest. Trust, but verify. When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.
2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.
A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.
Just areas that are "in play". Its how ad money is disbursed now.
I get that its a sticky wicket. I can see the "speech" argument.
But I can see the obvious problems too. Simply having money shouldn't convey a ridiculously louder "voice". Nor should amassing huge sums be necessary to simply be heard.
Add to this the tendency to grossly, cynically apply the science of persuasion and its a recipe for disaster.
I think a simple solution would be to alter FCC license to require "x" amount of airtime, radio and tv, during election season, under existing PSA regs. Free of charge but distributed by lot, preferably to the top 3 (or more for congressional seats) to allow a voice to third parties.
They can spend all they want making the ads, and the people get a little break from political ad bombardment.
Its just a thought, but just falling back on the freedom of speech argument doesn't address real issues with unlimited campaign money.
I prefer public funding myself. If politicians are only gonna work for those who fund their campaigns, then the people as a whole should fund campaigns.
The problem is that you're only allowing for political parties to speak. No message may be widely disseminated unless approved by a political party.