Nope, you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You protect wealth as if it is the patent holder of morality, then you condemn it by saying both parties are owned.

Is wealth the problem or does wealth know what is best for the rest of us?

(November 23, 2014 at 2:06 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(November 23, 2014 at 11:04 am)Cato Wrote: The problem isn't the money spent in elections; it's the apathetic and ignorant electorate. If people can be swayed by the typical political advertisement, no amount of funding limitation can solve the problem. I'm more concerened with the way money influences votes after the election.

I honestly don't think spending a shit load of money during an election makes a big difference. Heywood, would you vote for a pro-choice candidate if he/she outspent a pro-life candidate 10 to 1? Similarly, I would find it impossible to vote for someone that denied evolution. There's also no way in hell today that an openly avowed atheist would get elected to national office no matter how much money was spent.

Money isn't literally speech but it is effectively speech. A flag isn't speech...it is a flag. Fire isn't speech it is fire. But flag burning is speech. The flag and the fire are things which are used to convey a message. Using Ryantology's thinking flag burning should not necessarily be protected because flags and fire are not literally speech. His thinking is ludicrous of course.

Your thinking is actually a bit more reasoned. Your basically saying that campaign donations amount to a bribe. The problem I have with your thinking is this. You assume that all corporate and or wealthy donors are donating with the intention of inducing a particular vote. And you are assuming that all candidates accept campaign donations from wealthy donors/corporations/ labor unions/ etc as payments for voting in a particular way. I don't believe this to be true

This works a lot better if you respond to what I actually said instead of what you imagined I said. I didn't say any of this shit. The part that was close is my concern about lobbying (the after the election bit).

I don't give a fuck how much money is donated or spent.

(November 23, 2014 at 5:05 pm)Cato Wrote: I don't give a fuck how much money is donated or spent.

So it is your opinion there should be no campaign finance laws which limit who or how much money can be given to a campaign?

(November 23, 2014 at 8:41 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(November 23, 2014 at 5:05 pm)Cato Wrote: I don't give a fuck how much money is donated or spent.

So it is your opinion there should be no campaign finance laws which limit who or how much money can be given to a campaign?

That's right.

(November 23, 2014 at 8:56 pm)Cato Wrote:

(November 23, 2014 at 8:41 pm)Heywood Wrote: So it is your opinion there should be no campaign finance laws which limit who or how much money can be given to a campaign?

That's right.

You and I are on agreement on that point then.

I do disagree with your claim that ads do not have an effect. I think you are largely correct but that there exist a small portion of the population which can be swung by ads. Moving a vote into your column probably costs well over a thousand dollars in a presidential campaign. But with elections being as close as they are today...it might be worth it to a candidate.