And yet you don’t see the irony that you’re able to freely broadcast this opinion around the world on the Internet, an option not given to you by the governments of several countries.
The fatal flaw in that article is the assumption that only rich people donate money.
Donations are limited to $2,500 per person. Yes, rich people are more likely to give, and give more, but it’s not like they’re all billionaires. Most donors to campaigns are small donors who give alot less. The donation limit forces them to talk to alot more than rich people.
Another 3rd or so of their money comes from PACs, many of which are sponsored by organizations that represent everyday people, not rich people, for instance, labor unions or ideological groups or interest groups like AARP. Not rich people.
Many of them represent everyday people, but that’s hardly a requirement. You can just as easily have a PAC that represents only one (presumably rich) person, who can then funnel as much money through that PAC as he wants. Which rather defangs that $2,500 limit.
and yet rational choice is severely constrained by cognitive biases and available information, as any marketer would tell you. The public have declared that they do not want unlimited expenditures on electioneering materials. The public also do not want corporations to give money to politicians in order to fund speeches for the politicians. I think free speech can survive either of those onslaughts.
Whenever there’s a campaign finance thread, there will be at least a few posters saying it doesn’t matter because people aren’t dumb enough to vote for someone because a commercial tells them to. If that’s true, doesn’t it mean that a lot of people are spending metric shit-tons of money on advertising that they could be making better use of?
If one side or the other is necessarily stupid, I know which side my money is on.
Don’t I? I have a user name which is meant to be read, “fool’s guinea.” I’m quite ignorant of plenty of things, from matrix maths to the history of Guyana. Of course there are things I don’t understand. Understanding that is important.
I don’t think I’m perfectly smart, certainly. I am at times surprised at how dumb other people appear to be.
As for the Constitution declaring that the people are smart enough to be entrusted with democracy, I don’t see how it can support that claim. Given a good public education system, you can hope to educate people to manage a democracy. The Constitution can’t prove whether such an educational régime exists or not; the Constitution is just a framework of law, not a body of current social research.
Believe it or not, I actually recall a quasi-serious argument to that effect in Heinlein’s Time Enough for Love. Lazarus Long says a “business politician” will steal as a matter of course, but that is much better than an idealist who will break his word readily if convinced that is for the good of the “pee-pul.” “All a politician has to sell is his jawbone” anyway. That cynical POV is entirely consistent with the “Individualist Political Culture,” as opposed to the “Moralist” and “Traditionalist” American-regional political cultures, as identified by political scientist Daniel Elazar.
Ah yes, protection from the levelling spirit of man, the most vital function of the Constitution. Unfortunately, you weren’t paying attention: there are already limitations on direct contributions to candidates from corporations for the purposes of effecting speech from the candidates.
There have also been proposals for a constitutional amendment to limit campaign expenditures while preserving the freedom of the press.