re: #216 Aceofwhat?

And it’s not Congress’ job to “level the playing field” by restricting our speech.

You were the one who had leveling the playing field in your math.

But if what we saw in 2010 persists, a more level playing field between incumbents and challengers, then it is a marked improvement over what we had before.

If that is the only metric you decide to use, then yes, it could have a possible ‘good’ effect in that more money would be poured into challengers.

What is odd to me is that you see the last elections as somehow having produced a good result, solely because it was anti-incumbent, without regard to the actual quality of those elected, or the quality of their platform.

Do you think the GOP taking control of the House was a good thing?

And every time you say “corporations” and not “unions”, your argument gets a little less compelling. I support the rights of both to advertise on issues dear to their organizations.

Whatever. Corporations and unions and any group of people, they’re all corruptive to the process when they’re allowed to directly campaign. Rights should not be granted to organizations that are based on the rights for individuals, because groups vary enormously from individuals. They need their own set of rules and regulations, that take into account their advantages.

In that one regard, I am highly libertarian.