campaign financing aka beating a dead horse

[Mr.Bill]

[Medius]

[exploited]

Not the point. You said that the government would go after media outlets because money if it weren't considered speech - that is patently ridiculous, because it totally ignores the fact that there is oodles of case law protecting the media and that the US did just fine for the two hundred years prior to Citizens United.

In regards to unlimited campaign donations, anyone who advocates for them is a bloody moron.

[Indy]

I always found that fascinating: the fact that we did fine for so many years under something... so we get rid of it.

Like Wall St. regulations that worked for decades--we got rid of them and the economy crashed in the worst way since... most of them were enacted. Wow, what a mystery!

I wouldn't exactly call the centuries before Citizens United a Stalinist tyranny--but you wouldn't know it talking to the people who inexplicably support it.

But the reason I figured out a while ago: these people only care about implementing their ideology, no matter how discredited it is when it meets reality. It's like the trickle down people, or the austerity pimps, or a lot of the "free market" zealots. Even when it fails, that doesn't faze them. After all, it's their ideology. It can't be wrong.

[exploited]

It's principle over everything, no matter how damaging.

[Leviathan]

[The Comrade]

[Leviathan]

[exploited]

Bullshit.

Every Western country in the world is able to clearly distinguish when money is money and when it is speech.

It's not hard at all. Spend your money on speech, you're good. Spend it on campaign donations, you're not. Simple.

[Leviathan]