Great! Then stop trying to suppress speech. Glad you're starting to come around.That would be freaking awesome. I'm glad you're starting to come around.
We're talking about different things here - which is why you need to stop using definitions willy nilly, like I said.It's totally not about "the people can't handle speech." It's about the people not being allowed to "hear" the "speech". The "speech" takes place between lobbyists and elected officials--the people are being excluded. That's the point where it all starts to get weird.
I was talking about independent ads. What are you referring to here?
Right - so stop mixing up definitions, like I asked you to.You're railing against something other than what I am talking about.
And why is that? And how would you change that?Take the sugar industry example posted earlier. Did the public discuss the issue and form an opinion that they would like to give an extra $5 apiece to the Fanul family? No. The Fanjul family didn't talk to the electorate about it. I suspect that upwards of 90% of the US electorate has no idea about it.
The electorate doesn't care about that. Not enough to do much about it. Few people will go visit their congressmen about it. Yet the public might pay a few cents each to join a group that hires a LOBBYIST to work against sugar subsidies on their behalf.
Anyone is free to bring up the subject at any time, and even ask the congress member about it.I am very much for the Fanjul family making their case and being heard. I am so totally for it that I want them to take their case out of the seclusion of only having to discuss it with Congresscritters and have them announce aloud to the nation and let the electorate hear it.