Thread: How is this even possible?

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

Everytime, the feds get involved in trying to fix election funding, it gets more missed up. I suggest the following.

All donations go directly to the candidates.
All donations are transparent; the public can see every dime.
No limits.
Strict accounting of every penny.
Keep the "This message is approved by -candidate-" bit. So they are directly responsible for every single message.
When the campaign is over, it is audited. Think of it as a job program for accountants.
Every penny left over goes toward the national debt.
Complete records of the entire matter is in the public domain.

That still means that the more money you have the louder your voice is.

Originally Posted by carpe diem

Simple...One believes based upon ones own character.

Character doesn't influence logic. Critical thinking is the key here. To me, 'character' includes not assuming premises not in evidence just because it's convenient to one's view point. Being so thoroughly enamored of your own thoughts that they preclude you from considering some other view--and thus arguing from those thoughts even though not everyone shares them--that's a lack of character in my view.

Originally Posted by Babba

That still means that the more money you have the louder your voice is.

And that's called the right to private property. And one of the reasons people want to have it.

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

Everytime, the feds get involved in trying to fix election funding, it gets more missed up. I suggest the following.

All donations go directly to the candidates.
All donations are transparent; the public can see every dime.
No limits.
Strict accounting of every penny.
Keep the "This message is approved by -candidate-" bit. So they are directly responsible for every single message.
When the campaign is over, it is audited. Think of it as a job program for accountants.
Every penny left over goes toward the national debt.
Complete records of the entire matter is in the public domain.

I think you may be onto something here. Except I think we should also incorporate the "payment in coins" idea @boontito had.

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

And that's called the right to private property. And one of the reasons people want to have it.

So the more money you have the more free speech you get. Amarite?

Originally Posted by Babba

So the more money you have the more free speech you get. Amarite?

I think it's interesting how some people complain endlessly about "keep government out of business" and yet, here we have a stellar example of business using their profits (taxes must not be as much of a burden as we are told it is) to influence government and no one on the right minds at all.

I couldn't help but wonder why this guy thinks he needs a voice in government. Is he taxed too much? I don't think so, he's got a lot of extra cash laying around to toss at Gingrich. Is this about casino regulation being too cumbersome? Again, I doubt it, he seems to be doing all right with things the way they are, not to mention that would probably be a state issue more or less.

Aside from his views on how the US government should support Israel and his BFF Netanyahu:

What scares me is the continuation of the socialist-style economy we’ve been experiencing for almost four years," Adelson was quoted as saying, referring to the administration of current U.S. President Barack Obama. "That scares me because the redistribution of wealth is the path to more socialism, and to more of the government controlling people’s lives. What scares me is the lack of accountability that people would prefer to experience, just let the government take care of everything and I’ll go fish or I won’t work, etc.”

Responding to his critics, Adelson told Forbes, "Those people are either jealous or professional critics. They like to trash other people. It's unfair that I've been treated unfair - but it doesn''t stop me. I might give $10 million or $100 million to Gingrich."

You know, maybe we should deregulate gaming and let any damn asshole open a casino and see how he likes having to compete with people hungrier than him. Get off your fat old wrinkled ass and work, you douchebag. Sorry, but I really don't like this guy.

Adelson tells Forbes: I might give Gingrich $100 million - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

Originally Posted by Babba

So the more money you have the more free speech you get. Amarite?

Not at all. Quality speech has almost unlimited potential, with or without money. Money just gives you a means of spreading it around. If money didn't give one advantages, it wouldn't be so desired. But money's effectiveness with speech is quite questionable. Look at viral you tube entries that cost nothing. Performance is speech. Talent can be distributed. If anything, carpet bombing of messages dulls the ears of listeners.

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

Not at all. Quality speech has almost unlimited potential, with or without money. Money just gives you a means of spreading it around.

And a lack of money makes it impossible to spread it around. If someone speaks but no one hears, the the speech persuasive?

Originally Posted by Rasselas

And a lack of money makes it impossible to spread it around. If someone speaks but no one hears, the the speech persuasive?

That's the point exactly! Money amplifies your voice. So, the more money you have the louder your voice is.