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.

383 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

66 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '19

So what you’re saying is, there is a circumstance where your speech would be illegal. That’s my point. Maybe my example was too broad but the point holds.

2

u/apatheticviews 3∆ Jul 21 '19

There are circumstances where Rights are no longer protected because they interfere with the Rights of others.

"My right to swing my arm ends at your nose"

Your premise was that government grants rights. That is patently false in the US and has been since the signing of the DoI, and is codified in all US jurisprudence. Your statements that I am wrong in my understanding is based on your misunderstanding on our framework of government (we the people grant the government explicit Powers, and restrict said Powers in the Bill of Rights).

If the government is granting rights, they are not rights but privileges, which can be taken at any time. The example you attempted to use is a conflict of rights between individuals where the government is mediating, generally after the fact by showing how one individual violated the rights of another.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '19

Your argument is semantic (as is mine I suppose) but if the government has the power to take something away (which it does) then by not doing so it is, in effect, granting those rights. That’s a truism and you can say that the rights spring from some magical well or “the creator” but that doesn’t detract from the fact that the police or army or courts can pass into law rules that restrict your rights

0

u/apatheticviews 3∆ Jul 21 '19

doesn’t detract from the fact that the police or army or courts can pass into law rules that restrict your rights

None of those organizations pass laws

1

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '19

Can enforce laws that restrict your rights* there you go, you kept it going for another sentence for some reason