posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 07:18 PM
reply to post by ModernAcademia
I'll agree on the slippery slope, pretty much any time it comes to government.
As far as the donation/funding - perhaps more than $100, but something within the doable reach of the average citizen, but not so high as to allow
well-connected bigwigs to reach out to a relatively small number of people while padding their campaign accounts well in excessive of candidates who
are actually more popular...basically a matter of making it up on volume for income to more accurately represent actual support, and thus drive
candidates who are actually more popular (compare Paul's # of donors to Romney and Perry, etc.).
As to regulatory agencies - ugh. Talk about a double-edged sword. I believe the terms "unintended consequences..." and "even the best-laid
plans..." apply well here, as it seems to me they tend to quickly get corrupted and then populated by those they were founded to regulate, so they
eventually only end up regulating competition out of business while insulating those to be regulated from serious challenge, by imposing stifling
regulations only they can afford to meet - or ignore directly by simply paying the fines the competition can't.
The thought makes me sick, and forces me to ask who regulates the regulators? And on and on...it's like a russian nesting doll when you think about
it, a never-ending cycle of regulatory agencies seems called for.