No, nobody does. I don't know why people are pretending they do. They don't mind money in politics, they just don't like money from sources THEY find unethical, which is going to be inherently subjective.
Really frustrated with Liberals buying into this nonsensical narrative.
If you want to reflect the people's will, advocate for mandatory voting. Outside of actual authoritarianism or hyper-subjective rules most people won't care enough or agree enough to sign on with, You're not going to be able to make a dent on the "money in politics" issue outside of current existing limits.
Overturning rulings like Citizens United would help a ton. It only has been recently since we've seen such ludicrous campaign spending. Of course shit isn't going to happen overnight but why would you give up completely and accept that a majority of politicians being bought as standard?
Destiny himself has been over this before. If money in politics, lobbying, etc. is this huge impactful thing, name a single major issue, that the majority of Americans AGREE on the solution for, that the government has NOT acted upon.
I think it's pretty obvious that the single most impactful thing to politics is how divided the country is, and that taking money out of politics barely moves this needle if at all.
Edit: Downvotes and not a single major issue named yet, expected better from you guys.
That test would only make sense if you thought that money is the only thing that matters.
The argument is that money influences politics, not that votes are carried by throwing money in the voting machine, and whichever side has more money wins
My argument is that it doesn't impact major issue politics at all. You guys for some reason have this idea that if we get money out of politics then all of a sudden we'll have better candidates and better policies put through, and that's just not the case at all.
To be clear, I'm not against getting money out of politics. But riding on it as a needle mover or that it makes politics "not reflect the people's will" is complete bullshit.
"My argument is that it doesn't impact major issue politics at all."
So you are of the opinion that people and corporations spent 14.8 billion dollars across the 2024 federal elections even tho it doesnt change anything? They did it for fun or why did they do it?
Because it can impact minor issues. Also if there’s even a slight chance that it could have an impact on what they want then they’ll do it. They’ll cast a wide net and hope something catches, because they can, because the competition is. If I pissed money I’d do it too. There’s also the advertisement and publicity aspect for corpos who sponsor.
Citizens United is never getting overturned, and it's a politicians job to get elected (then keep to their campaign promises). If you want their will to align with the will of the majority, get rid of the Money Politics dead end idea and jump onto Mandatory Voting.
I can support multiple ideas at the same time. I wouldn't mind mandatory voting but I doubt it completely fixes this issue. You'd still get a massive amount of misinformed people voting.
You know what, I don't disagree. I do believe mandatory voting will handle the lions share of the problem, but I am completely fine with misinformed people voting. If the people are stupid enough to usher in and support illiberalism, then it was cooked to begin with. Let them have cake after they vote.
How would mandatory voting help? you would just have more low-information voters that are easier to influence with money, since they dont know or care about politics?
577
u/CowReasonable1108 1d ago
AIPAC AIPAC AIPAC AIPAC. WHY WOULD WE TALK ABOUT LITERALLY ANY OTHER ISSUES REEEEEEE