Public finacing of elections ensures Freedom of Speech

konradv

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Mar 23, 2010
43,736
14,576
If candidates don't have to go out and beg for funds, usually at the expense of their vote, they'd be FREE to say whatever they want, instead of checking with their big donors(masters).
 
Are you nuts? Do you even know what "public financing" means? It means incumbent politicians or government agencies would be in charge of the taxpayer money financing the campaigns of their own political opponents. How fair do you think that system would be? The 1st Amendment to the Constitution confirms the right to free speech and the Supreme Court ruled that money is speech. Americans have the right to donate money to the candidate they like. Only a fascist would take that right away.
 
I ain't worried about a stupid politician who can't talk without permission, I am worried about me being able to say whatever I want, whenever I want, which is why CU was the right decision.
 
Are you nuts? Do you even know what "public financing" means? It means incumbent politicians or government agencies would be in charge of the taxpayer money financing the campaigns of their own political opponents. How fair do you think that system would be? The 1st Amendment to the Constitution confirms the right to free speech and the Supreme Court ruled that money is speech. Americans have the right to donate money to the candidate they like. Only a fascist would take that right away.

As usual the fascists are misrepresenting the facts and themselves.

The supreme court IS NOT constitutional and needs to be replaced IF they are doing these things.
 
Public finacing (sic) of elections ensures Freedom of Speech

Like hell it does.

The only ones who will allowed to speak, insofar as political campaigns are concerned, will be the ones that the ruling class -y'know, those controlling the money- deems "viable" and "legitimate".
 

Forum List

Back
Top