The underlying problem is that small groups of very motivated people can outweigh large numbers of not-very-interested ones.
Why do you think that's "the" underlying problem?
Isn't an oppressed minority exactly a small group that is highly motivated to rid itself of oppression, versus the majority which is not very interested?
You seem to be conflating motivation and money. The problem is not that people who fervently believe in something sometimes get their way. The problem is that absurdly rich interests get their way just because they're absurdly rich.
You can restrict direct contributions to candidates.
And publicly fund elections.
If you wanted to ban private groups from ...
Where did this come from? If it's in the Lessig piece, I missed it.
I don't think there's a way to restrict private expenditures without basically having ...
Again, where did this come from?
BTW, I know it's un-American to acknowledge the existence of other countries, but you should realize that trying to equate restrictions on third-party spending to FREE SPEECH GONE!!!! NEWSPAPERS BECOME PARTY MOUTHPIECES!!!11!1! looks kind of silly when you're next door to a country that restricts third-party spending, without having "basically" repealed 2(b).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-19 07:44 pm (UTC)Why do you think that's "the" underlying problem?
Isn't an oppressed minority exactly a small group that is highly motivated to rid itself of oppression, versus the majority which is not very interested?
You seem to be conflating motivation and money. The problem is not that people who fervently believe in something sometimes get their way. The problem is that absurdly rich interests get their way just because they're absurdly rich.
You can restrict direct contributions to candidates.
And publicly fund elections.
If you wanted to ban private groups from ...
Where did this come from? If it's in the Lessig piece, I missed it.
I don't think there's a way to restrict private expenditures without basically having ...
Again, where did this come from?
BTW, I know it's un-American to acknowledge the existence of other countries, but you should realize that trying to equate restrictions on third-party spending to FREE SPEECH GONE!!!! NEWSPAPERS BECOME PARTY MOUTHPIECES!!!11!1! looks kind of silly when you're next door to a country that restricts third-party spending, without having "basically" repealed 2(b).