(November 22, 2014 at 2:58 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: In the Internet age, acquiring signatures for a petition is not an especially difficult or expensive activity. There can even be publicly-funded facilitators to help candidates.
And, even if it's not a perfect solution, it gets a lot more people involved, introduces a lot more potential candidates, and does more than anything else could to break the two-party duopoly everybody hates.
In the internet age, it doesn't take a lot of money to produce a slick ad and get it seen by thousands of people. The internet has helped level the playing field in terms of candidates getting their messages out. What it hasn't done is made it easier to collect signatures to get on a ballot. I'm not sure why you think it does....but getting signatures requires physically going around and meeting people face to face.....the internet does not help with this.
(November 22, 2014 at 2:58 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: My claim is not that corporate profits should not be used to fund campaigns. My claim is that no private money of any kind should be funding, or influencing, a political campaign. That puts everybody on an even level. Otherwise, our political system is nothing but a sham.
So if I like a candidate it becomes illegal for me to run down to Office Depot, buy some markers and poster board....write up a sign and put it up in my yard? Your plan to stop private money of any kind from influencing a political campaign is a plan to curtail my speech.
What would you have me do? Go down to some government agency wait in line, fill out 10 different forms, go to 8 different windows just to obtain some publicly financed markers and poster board? Eliminating private money from campaigns is not only ludicrous....it is impossible.
