top | item 46159741

(no title)

grafmax | 2 months ago

Your voice being heard is one thing. What we have here is the consequence of huge wealth disparities. Those with the money can influence the “democratic” process in outsized ways. That is the opposite of democratic.

discuss

order

mytailorisrich|2 months ago

The implication of your comment is that "those with money" should be silenced or at least treated differently... slippery slope again.

You can limit the amount of money spent on lobbying and/or political activities. That's about it, and that's already not easy to do.

Xelbair|2 months ago

No, their voice should have exactly the same value as everyone else's.

no less, no more.

Unless we are done with pretending that there are no power disparities.

And one of few ways to do so is to either:

- completely ban lobbying, any form of privilege/monetary exchange is considered a bribery. Introduce a public open dialogue when working on a new legislation. Rich can still make their own campaigns for specific issues - just targeting voters, not politicians directly.

- introduce system of checks and balances where any form of lobbying must be publicly visible and attached to image of politician, so voter can easily make informed decision. Including something correlated with amount of money donated, counting shell organizations in it too.

good luck - no politician will vote to cut their own paycheck.

grafmax|2 months ago

No, my point is the root cause is wealth inequality, which is fundamentally undemocratic, and a different issue than free speech. The solution is wealth expropriation, not censorship.

jack_tripper|2 months ago

Yes, the system is "pay to win", always has.