Z, > If there isn't, that just means that people with the most money nearly always have to be the most pandered to, and that is a major problem for democracy.
I have a problem with the concept that we have to level the playing field between the rich and the poor.
First of all, just because you have more money does not necessarily mean you will have more influence. Even if I had a billion dollars to spend on public service ads, there is no way I can convince anyone to eat razor blades for breakfast. That's an extreme example, but one which should illustrate how the quality of the message itself still matters more than how many people you can reach.
Secondly, the traditional means for the poor to take on the rich is to band together, pool their resources, and present a united front. That in itself should be more than sufficient to level the playing field.
And third, we have more means of communication and networking than any other time in the history of humanity, especially with the Internet. The barriers to entry are low. That to me is the most level playing field I have ever seen.
Hence, I agree that no one really ought to give a f--- about how much money Soros pumps into 527s. It's his money, he is free to spend it on whatever socialistic crusade he believes in. Same thing applies to those funding the Swifties. Or the oh-so-non-partisan think tanks trying to influence public policy. As long as We The People are diligent enough to smell the B.S. and vote the bums out of office, democracy will take care of itself.
Tenchusatsu |
