posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 01:49 PM
a reply to: 727Sky
So true, lol, and that is the point, isn't it? You get somebody in office who is willing to even dramatically change things where you live because
some company is offering to send a big enough sum your way for your next election. When the Supreme Court ruled that money = speech in Citizens
United, it was really saying "you can buy democracy". Even if those ads were found to be ineffective, it is still a purchasing of democracy as a
donation to a candidate's party allows that foot in the door. With those re-elections, if you want more, well then you're going to have to play
ball. It's no wonder that we do have some many hijinks going on with legislation. Wasn't it a few years ago where Boehner was caught passing out
envelopes with checks in them just before a vote on a bill? It's disturbing really and both parties play that particular game.
Perhaps unfortunately those ads are protected free speech so that's kind of the problem, too. Take away the ads and well, that smacks at the First
Amendment. No matter which way I look at it, those ads being run by those groups funded by god knows who are going to be protected by that First
Amendment. It's kind of like getting painted in a corner, isn't it?