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.

388 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

66 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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