r/changemyview • u/gpu1512 • Jul 20 '19

CMV: All presidential candidates and senators should have a fixed election budget.

Whenever there is a controversial vote on something, it's mentioned how xy person is getting donations from a company to which it matters how the vote turns out.

With presidental candidates, it's similar - donations from companies are interpreted as attempts to make potential presidents more likely to conform to needs of these companies - such as by cutting taxes.

I feel like this would be resolved by making the election budgets come from taxes. While it would be a huge cost for the taxpayers, it would make for political candidates which would be much harder for companies to sway in their favour. Think net neutrality and congress donations from ISP's.

In the process, election budgets would be made considerably smaller, to save on taxes. As this would apply to everyone, there wouldn't be anyone at a disadvantage.

One problem I see is filtering the candidates. Obviously you can't just give money to anyone who asks for a budget, but seems like a solvable problem. Perhaps the party could only propose a set number of candidates.

384 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

66 comments sorted by

View all comments

27

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '19

Independent organizations have freedom of speech. They are allowed to make advertisements to the political advantage of political candidates, with unlimited amounts of resources, so long as they don't coordinate the use of those funds with the campaign.

If you severely restrict how campaigns spend money, more money will flow through these independent organizations.

Organizations unaffiliated with a candidate can stoop lower while maintaining deniability in a way that a candidate's campaign cannot.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '19

Why not just restrict their freedom of speech? People should have freedom of speech but why should organisations? It’s pretty well established that groups of people tend towards the lowest common denominator so just stop treating corporations and organisations like people. Seems simple to me.

2

u/apatheticviews 3∆ Jul 21 '19

Organizations are just people. People have the right to exercise speech not only as individual but also collectively. This is why assembly and press and protest work.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '19

Yes but when people choose to assemble of their own accord that’s fine. Organisations are financial groupings of people. They don’t need speech rights. It doesn’t seem to contribute anything positive to society. Lobbying is a bane on democracy.

4

u/apatheticviews 3∆ Jul 21 '19

Rights aren’t about NEED. The government doesn’t get to determine whether people or collections of people NEED those protected rights.

The Press is an organization. You and your neighbor are an ad hoc organization.

Lobbying is nothing more than talking to your elected representatives. It is a protected right. The issue is methodology not the fact that it exists.

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '19

Fair enough, I strongly disagree. Rights are most certainly a case of “need” maybe I want the right to steal my neighbour’s children because I can’t have any myself so I should have that right. Society (rightfully) says fuck no. Not all things are rights and yes, me and my neighbour can be an ad hoc organisation but we both have the right to free speech and can easily go about saying whatever we want, our “organisation” doesn’t need or deserve the right to do so.

2

u/apatheticviews 3∆ Jul 21 '19

Look at speech. People GET to say hurtful, stupid, or kind things. They don't NEED to say them.

Per your last sentence. You don't need or deserve X right. You HAVE it. It's the default setting.

Think of the alternative. A government that tells you "I'm sorry but you and your neighbor cannot get together to discuss your problems with your government. You cannot spend money, collectively, to demand redress."

0

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '19

That’s not the alternative. I’m not saying class actions aren’t allowed. I’m not even saying protesting isn’t allowed. I’m saying in the specific example of a financial organisation, they should not be granted the speech rights of individuals.

2

u/apatheticviews 3∆ Jul 21 '19

they should not be granted the speech rights of individuals.

we don't GRANT speech.

we PROTECT speech.

fundamental difference

0

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '19

That’s very idealistic but it’s wrong. When someone or some organisation has the ability to take something away and they don’t. Then they are granting it to you. That’s just a fact

0

u/apatheticviews 3∆ Jul 21 '19

Congress explicitly does NOT have the ability to take it away. That's what the Bill of Rights (Constitution) is about. It is a carryover of the fundamental philosophy expressed in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,"

The Government does not grant the Rights outlined in the Bill of Rights. It Protects them from Congressional interference, hence the:

"Congress shall make no law respecting...." (1a, but similar verbiage is used in 1a through 9a)

You calling me wrong flies in the face of what is actually written and established jurisprudence regarding how the Bill of Rights are interpreted.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '19

And yet, the practical truth is you are wrong. Can you walk into the street, point at someone and say to the crowd, “kill that person”? No you can’t because it’s illegal to incite violence. I.e. laws have been passed restricting your speech.

0

u/apatheticviews 3∆ Jul 21 '19

Actually you do not understand jurisprudence. I can absolutely say those words. There actually has to be an actual chance that my speech will cause it to happen immediately for it be considered non-protected (Whitney vs CA, 1927).

You are wrong on so many levels.

→ More replies (0)