The right of peacable assembly was on my mind when I wrote the response above, but the answer seemed so obvious I didn't think it needed to be spelled out:
The issue on the table is the use of money by special interest groups and individuals to buy disproportionate influence over politics.
Nothing will prevent a group of people with a common wild hair from peacably assembling, working themselves into a lather, and going home to write angry letters to their representatives; or agreeing to all vote the same way in the next election. Their influence on politics is exactly proportional to their numbers, as it should be in a democracy.
What's objectionable is the use of money to compensate for small numbers...the ability to buy a metaphorical megaphone that lets one small group or an individual drown out the voices of many other individuals, and (in essence) fraudulently impersonate a much larger voting bloc.
One person, one vote. Not one dollar, one vote. It's not that hard to understand.
--Robert
Current Events » in reply to I can't believe you said that...
Re: I can't believe you said that...
The whole thread (37 posts)
- First Amendment apparently not shredded entirely, but not for lack of trying
- Re: Well . . .
- "What if the vote had gone the other way?"
- Fundamental to conservatism.
- Which animals are more equal than others...
- Re: First Amendment apparently not shredded entirely, but not for lack of trying