Quote:
Originally Posted by CamEdwards
I think it's more an issue for shareholders than the government.
|
You've not addressed my point.
You've painted this as a choice between letting "groups of individuals, acting together" pool money to influence campaigns or simply ceding such expenditures (and related influence) to rich individuals. Which altogether misses the influence actual corporations (BP, Alcoa, GE, Pfizer, etc...) would have on campaigns if allowed to use their resources to purchase airtime for this purpose directly. This is important because arguably these corporations have access to a significantly bigger tap of money, collectively, than either "groups of individuals, acting together" or rich individuals.
I'm not, at this point, saying whether or not this would be a bad thing. I'm just saying it's a huge elephant in the room that your argument completely ignores.