A subtle difference there but it's up to you whether you consider them to be either same [both expressions of freedom] or different [speeches aren't acts]. I maybe mistaken though. — TheMadFool
Okay, so besides the semantics.. maybe let's just say.. is it a freedom to put one's money into a candidate one likes.. even it makes that politician liable to pander to such backers? — schopenhauer1
If donating to your candidate means that that candidate is now beholden to you, your candidate can be bought. Why are you donating to them? Someone with more money can buy them away from your interests. Seems like a very bankrupt system. I would support electoral reform that would limit, and equalize, the amount each party could spend on advertising. Included in that limit would be third party advertising. Make the candidate win votes, not brainwash the electors. May the best candidate win, not the one willing to drop the most cash. That would also greatly reduce the influence, perceived or real, that contributors had on a candidate.
Granted, it will likely never happen, but imagine if each party only had a million dollar limit for an election. Any election. The candidate would have to actually inspire people to have themselves be remembered at the polls. Those candidates might actually make a great government. — Book273
Why do people have a perception that politicians are corrupt in terms of monied interests? What would help this perception or reality? — schopenhauer1
Presumably, if corporations can find loopholes to fund candidate campaigns, those candidates are beholden to those corporations, and will be in their pocket.
The other side is that spending money is the same as other choices that are supposed to be allowed in a "free" society. — schopenhauer1
One doesn't actually need to conclude that the candidate is beholden to the source of the money. It'd be sufficient to observe that only candidates which can raise sufficient money have a chance to win, and you wouldn't spend your money on someone who supports things you dislike. — Echarmion
Unlimited money in politics would still mean that ideas that aren't supported by monied interests get way less exposure. And this would lead to them being less likely to be adopted, even if everyone's integrity was flawless. — Echarmion
Politics is the one area where acquiring work experience is considered to lead to a lesser work product. Completely illogical. Imagine using the same thought process to pick a surgeon. "Oh, you've hardly performed this procedure before, I'll pick you to cut me open." Ridiculous. — LuckyR
So what is the solution? Public elections? — schopenhauer1
Right now? Term limits were big news from 1992-1994 and the 22nd amendment passed in 1951. Old news... — LuckyR
A public election fund would help. Doesn't at all eliminate the problem of lobbying and post-political careers, but it at least makes the actual election finance independent. — Echarmion
I have an example worse than the current Congress... — LuckyR
Cue current dysfunctional Congress — schopenhauer1
All candidates should get equal time to make their arguements and propose their ideas. Act with your vote, not your money when it comes to choosing your representative. Money should not be the arbiter of which ideas are good or not. Logic should. Money should stay out of politicsFreedom is the power to act, speak, think what one wants
Free speech is the power to speak what one wants.
Spending money on a candidate is an act.
A subtle difference there but it's up to you whether you consider them to be either same [both expressions of freedom] or different [speeches aren't acts]. I maybe mistaken though. — TheMadFool
All candidates should get equal time to make their arguements and propose their ideas. Act with your vote, not your money when it comes to choosing your representative. Money should not be the arbiter of which ideas are good or not. Logic should. Money should stay out of politics — Harry Hindu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.