Quote:
Originally Posted by UFO
TYT, annoying as they are, do some good work, especially with their advocacy of getting money out of politics.
|
I'm conflicted on this one. There should be as few restrictions on how one spends the money they have legally obtained, as possible. It's related to freedom of speech and freedom of association.
At the same time, politics is mostly an advertising campaign, which by definition is designed to manipulate decision by appealing to emotion rather than reason. Advertising is a waste of money in that it doesn't produce anything of value.
We would be better off wasting less money on campaigns, and it would help to level the playing field if each candidate were given equal campaign funds and airtime, but how would this process work? We can't just give anyone who wants to run for office public funds and private airtime because there would be millions of "applicants". We would need to hold an election to nominate a party representative to limit the number of people running, at which point the same problem exists where people contribute "pre-campaign" funds to nominate their person.
The problem is unsolvable because there is no way to limit campaign contributions even if you wanted to. Any attempt to do so is arbitrary, such as the
arrest of Dinesh D'Souza exceeding contribution limits. Not only that, but the government has no right to say how money can be spent.
The only solution is for people to evolve beyond being sheeple. That is a slow process, so I'm not holding my breath.