Bernie Sanders exposes billionaires who are buying US government.

[MrFun]

I'm not saying that people should not be free to be stupid or delusional. But let's just call it like it is.

[Jaguar]

I'm not saying that people should not be free to be stupid or delusional. But let's just call it like it is.

Specifically, with respect to voting? They should not be allowed to vote for the people they mistakenly believe they want to vote for?

[Guynemer]

You wish voters were smarter but you don't want to sound like a jerk for calling them dumb.

I have zero issues with sounding like a jerk. Voters are dumb. They are dumb-coated dumb sacks with dumb filling.

Doesn't change the fact that our political system is corrupt as hell.

[Guynemer]

@ guynemer getting sonned. That was wholly unexpected.

The **** you talking about.

[Guynemer]

OK, let's go ahead and ask the same question that every single anti-free-speech poster has failed to answer.

What is wrong with people convincing other people to support political positions? Is this not the exact thing the first amendment is intended to protect?

Where did anyone say that there is anything wrong with that?

My concern is with people literally buying the votes of elected representatives, via campaign contributions, lobbying "junkets", etc.


You are conflating two different arguments. They are related, obviously, but the primary concern is separate.

[Jaguar]

Explain the precise procedure by which they "buy" the votes, and tell me how it is "literal."

[Guynemer]

As I said: campaign contributions, lobbying junkets, handshake deals to go into the industry in question after leaving office, etc.


And, again: I am under no illusions that our system is any more corrupt than any other political system in the history of sentient life in the universe. But to deny the existence of such is infuriating, to say the least.

[Jaguar]

Campaign contributions are excellent expressions of free speech. If a politician does what a citizen desires, he helps convince other people to vote for that politician! It's democracy in action.

Lobbying junkets and deals designed to personally enrich the politician have no element of speech, and are not protected under the constitution.

[giblets]

Yes. Take 20 adults who aren't carrying any diseases and settle them on the moon. QED

Money wouldn't corrupt democracy among 20 adults living on the moon.

[regexcellent]

Money doesn't corrupt 230,000,000 adults in North America either.

[giblets]

Money doesn't corrupt 230,000,000 adults in North America either.

Bull****.

[regexcellent]

All campaign contributions facilitate more speech. They pay for the creation of more speech, which allows people to be more informed about the election. The more speech, the better. Therefore we should not limit campaign contributions. We should limit in-kind favors for campaign contributions, and we do; those are illegal.

[DaShi]

That's a very naive perspective.

[giblets]

All campaign contributions facilitate more speech. They pay for the creation of more speech, which allows people to be more informed about the election. The more speech, the better. Therefore we should not limit campaign contributions. We should limit in-kind favors for campaign contributions, and we do; those are illegal.

There's no legal recourse for politicians acting according to the interests of their campaign contributors and not the interests of the public. Also, "speech" is not some amorphous blob that can be measured in a linear fashion where adding more "speech" sauce always makes election outcomes better for the public.

[Jaguar]

Their campaign contributors are the public.