One nice thing about whistling past the graveyard, it cheers up the dead folks.
Cute. But SCOTUS struck down the limits, because the government couldn’t prove that reducing money in politics had any purpose whatsoever other than to reduce money in politics. Less money=less speech, for no overriding purpose that the government could articulate.
Can you articulate a purpose, one that is actually provable?
We are not in a court of law here, adaher. Nor are you specially entitled to define the terms of discussion.
You offer an absurdity, or at the very least a perplexing conundrum. If political advertising and massive donations to that end have no real effect, then why do they do it? If they are not buying political influence, what are they buying?
Even your effort to evade the question reveals the weakness of your premise. You pretend to believe that all that rich guy money flowing in generous abundance to the Republican Party makes no difference, that there is no reason to regulate something that has no effect.
And yet prospective Republican candidates fly to Vegas to genuflect before one very rich man. Are we to believe that its because of his brilliant political insight and probity? Or is it his money? I’m thinking its the money, have you an alternative suggestion?
Honest engine, cross your heart and hope to pie, you really believe that there is a general rough parity of political power between the ordinary US citizen and a rich one? Seriously?
Sure for about 3 million dollars I can max out my contribution to every incumbent (and I have always said that this would be the most cost effective way to buy influence in DC) but the sad fact of the matter is that you can pump a billion dollars into a PAC, hire Karl Rove to run it without worrying about stupid campaign finance limits as long as you aren’t doing what the candidates tell you (and with that much money, why would you let them dictate the terms of anything, you’re BUYING them, not seducing them).
Alas, you cannot. There are still limits on how much an individual can contribute to a PAC. But now you can contribute that same limit to as many PACs as you want to and can afford.
And that limit applies to you and me same as it does the Koch Bros. So, totally equal!
Reminds me so much of that Anatole France quote: “In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread.”
I’m sorry, I should have said superPACs.