Diversity of viewpoints would have occurred, had any group of people been able to raise a candidate through a broad base making small donations and actually being represented.
Except that it's never worked out that way.
What you have now is a few candidates representing the interests of a few businessmen, and the broad base still remaining unrepresented.
You have more now than you would under the old system, however. Without Super PAC support, Newt and Santorum would have dropped out two months ago.
A thousand factory workers from Middlevillestown cannot compete with Sheldon Adelson, Peter Thiel and Foster Friess. They could try, but their voices would still be drowned by the loud campaign run by the super-wealthy.
I fundamentally disagree. A thousand factory workers giving $100 each is $100k, enough for ad buys. Nothing is "drowned out" in this case.
Super-PAC are not an evil thing per se. Intransparency and lack of accountability is the problem there. We need to know who these candidates are really speaking for - who's writing them the checks, why, what is expected of them, and how are they going to play their role in the game.
Well, in a way, we do, because they're being voluntarily transparent. But at what point did anonymous speech become bad? Are we no longer supposed to have anonymous speech?
Pro-speech vs anti-speech sounds like a false dichotomy to me. It may be about loud speech. And I don't think the ordinary people have access to loud speech. I mean they could shout all they want in their remote corner but if they don't have the figurative megaphon, that exercise seems useless.
The problem is that those in opposition want "equal" speech, which is inherently unfree. Spending millions doesn't mean you actually get heard, either - I don't think the millions Santorum's Super PAC has spent has reached my ears yet, for example, and it's certainly not making me favor him more or, say, Romney less.
no subject
Except that it's never worked out that way.
What you have now is a few candidates representing the interests of a few businessmen, and the broad base still remaining unrepresented.
You have more now than you would under the old system, however. Without Super PAC support, Newt and Santorum would have dropped out two months ago.
A thousand factory workers from Middlevillestown cannot compete with Sheldon Adelson, Peter Thiel and Foster Friess. They could try, but their voices would still be drowned by the loud campaign run by the super-wealthy.
I fundamentally disagree. A thousand factory workers giving $100 each is $100k, enough for ad buys. Nothing is "drowned out" in this case.
Super-PAC are not an evil thing per se. Intransparency and lack of accountability is the problem there. We need to know who these candidates are really speaking for - who's writing them the checks, why, what is expected of them, and how are they going to play their role in the game.
Well, in a way, we do, because they're being voluntarily transparent. But at what point did anonymous speech become bad? Are we no longer supposed to have anonymous speech?
Pro-speech vs anti-speech sounds like a false dichotomy to me. It may be about loud speech. And I don't think the ordinary people have access to loud speech. I mean they could shout all they want in their remote corner but if they don't have the figurative megaphon, that exercise seems useless.
The problem is that those in opposition want "equal" speech, which is inherently unfree. Spending millions doesn't mean you actually get heard, either - I don't think the millions Santorum's Super PAC has spent has reached my ears yet, for example, and it's certainly not making me favor him more or, say, Romney less.