I have to conclude you didn’t actually read what I said, because that doesn’t answer it at all. A difference would mean something that would prevent the exact same argument from being made in all four cases. If I can copy and paste the same reasoning for each subject, like this:
A government agent can spend money on a road because that’s how a republic works – the one who gets the most votes gets to run things, no matter what the losing side thinks.
A government agent can spend money on a war because that’s how a republic works – the one who gets the most votes gets to run things, no matter what the losing side thinks.
A government agent can spend money on an organization because that’s how a republic works – the one who gets the most votes gets to run things, no matter what the losing side thinks.
But a government agent can’t spend money on a candidate – even though in a republic the one who gets the most votes is supposed to run things, no matter what the losing side thinks?
Or like this:
A road has not yet received the consent of the governed because it has not been elected…but you still say a government agent can spend money on it.
A war has not yet received the consent of the governed because it has not been elected…but you still say a government agent can spend money on it.
An organization has not yet received the consent of the governed because it has not been elected…but you still say a government agent can spend money on it.
A candidate has not yet received the consent of the governed because it has not been elected…but in this one case that somehow makes it a violation of your rights for a government agent to spend money, presumably even if they ran on that platform?
…then you haven’t actually justified the difference, and coming up with such a completely different conclusion is therefore special pleading. Simple enough?
For the record those protesters were discovered to be part of a republican youth organization. Basically they went in with the intent of driving trollies and making it look like Bernie, who had gotten arrested during the era when protesters were met with dogs and firehoses
Is someone taking away your right to complain about it?
Funding for a road, a war, and an organization are decided by those who have already been elected, meaning they have the right to use our tax money because we know it’s going toward someone that benefits everyone.
The cash for publicly financed elections go to those who have not yet been elected, meaning it’s only going to benefit a single individual, rather than a whole country.
Your last example is nothing like your previous three; you see that, right?
Sorry, I should have said ‘why should I treat it as any more legitimate than the also-perfectly-legal thing that you’re complaining about?’
In the end, it’s about prioritization, and I’m big on results and don’t worship a system that was made by some dudes who thought a black person could be a fraction of a human and women couldn’t vote. When you combine that with the fact that we’d be better off with random toddlers in congress, then the benefit of the doubt is also undeserved.
“I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.”
— William F. Buckley
I genuinely don’t. The road, war, and organization may be something that benefits everyone, but they could also just be going to benefit a single individual. It seems like your presumption is that the electorate decide which, and by electing the government agent endorse their action.
But obviously some people here think that funding for candidates would ultimately benefit everyone. You disagree and say that it would only benefit the one person; but instead of holding that up to the result of an election, you’ve claimed it as a fundamental right. Why would that be any different than someone saying they’re sure that funding the road, war, or organization would only benefit one person, and so they have a fundamental right not to be associated with it?
Do you understand what’s being asked here? Not whether you think spending on a candidate benefits more than one person or not, but why that decision should be a matter of rights, whereas the decision whether a road, war, or organization benefits more than one person or not is up for election. Is there a real reason for the difference, or just more special pleading?
Because a road, war, or organization is not supposed to concretely benefit a single person. A war benefits a nation (it’s safer); a road benefits a community (it’s easier to get across a river); an organization benefits a group (the department of veterans affairs benefits veterans – here I’m stretching, and assuming you mean government organizations).
All of the government’s actions are done to benefit the most people possible, so even if you don’t like what the government does, it’s done on your behalf, because you agreed to abide by it by living here.
A campaign does not benefit anyone but the person running for office; that’s not to say that a person couldn’t undertake actions that benefit a great majority after he takes office, but all of the actions of actually running for office benefit the office seeker.
Running for office benefits citizens who want to elect a candidate who will govern well. That’s why candidates need to be convinced to run for office. It doesn’t benefit the person who is running.
Running for office is also expensive and hard which is why no one usually wants to do it. It doesn’t pay well. It’s mostly thankless with long hours, crowds and long days consumed by pressure and stress.
You strategically failed to quote the part where I point out that a road is also not a government agent. The government ought to fund things if it is in the public interest to fund them, regardless of whether those things are agents of the state.
Alright, at this point it is very hard to believe you are not being intentionally obtuse. ROADS ARE NOT GOVERNMENT AGENTS!!! As for people specifically, we create food and housing support programs (and many others) to support people who are yet and who will never be part of the government, and you bet that some of those people espouse ideas that are odious to you. You are trying to make up a special category that makes no sense in order to find a different way of saying, “I don’t think we should fund political candidates” but all you are saying is “I don’t think we should fund political candidates.” In a democracy, you have your say, but so does everyone else.
Right now, a campaign only benefits the person running for office, because running for office requires spending 99% of your time raising money, which they get to keep even if they lose. Plus, having to raise millions of dollars just to campaign means those with more money and connections to start with have a major lead. And perhaps worst of all, raising the big money comes with big expectations, which means the candidate who wins has a line of people and corporations insisting they get some quid pro quo.
If the only funding that can be used for a campaign is a set amount – and a REASONABLE amount, quite a bit below what is currently the norm – given to any and all legitimate candidates and only for use on the campaign or else it goes back to the Treasury, then those who are in it for the money won’t bother. Which is good: we only want serious candidates who are actually interested in governing and representing their constituents.
Paradoxically, putting a little money into the campaign process will take the big money OUT of the campaign process, which is a necessary reform.
Personally, I would love to set clear boundaries on what candidates could do. As an example: a total of 6 televised debates, 3 televised speeches with a 1-hour Q&A period afterward, 1 position piece per week printed in every newspaper and published online in one place for all candidates. No advertising. No raising money. The candidate presents his/her arguments for all to see/hear in public forums and that’s it.
Doesn’t the FEC restrict excess campaign contributions to use for future campaigns or other enumerated purposes? The money may be kept but used only subject to restrictions.
