Last week was the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision enshrining the idea that money in politics is not corruption, but constitutionally protected speech. States and cities across the US are battling the rotten legacy of that decision.
Last week was the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision enshrining the idea that money in politics is not corruption, but constitutionally protected speech. States and cities across the US are battling the rotten legacy of that decision.
Personally, I think that if UBI and wealth caps are implemented, that people should be able to use money to support political speech…up to a limit. Say, a $1,000 limit per individual, each year. Corporations can’t use money for speech, just citizens. Anyone caught selling their speech for favors, lose their citizenship.
By setting a visible and clear amount of ‘maxing’ a person can do, it sets a goal. A fair number of people would work towards filling that political bucket of money, since they know the goal is achievable, and that their speech actually matters. A billionaire can’t put their finger on the scales, if their billions didn’t exist in the first place. This is helpful for preventing a feeling of not mattering within the ordinary person.
When it comes down to it, many of society’s ills come from the wealthy. Not just because of the influence they exert, but also because they demoralize people who otherwise would participate in democracy.
How are you going to prevent billionaires from giving money under the table? Seems simpler to me to just not have billionaires.
Well, I DID mention wealth caps. Part of this is to limit how much income an individual can earn each year - anything beyond the cap should be fully taxed. Also, an maximum amount of money that a person can have in total savings and assets.