ALL candidates? Does that include candidates who have no chance to win? The American Nazi Party for example? Why in the fuck should they get as much money as the "established" parties or even the third parties that are on the fringes but still have the power to influence. Like the Libertarian, Green and Constitution Parties?

Your quick fixes lack foresight. I don't mean that as an insult It seems to me that you're genuinely concerned and motivated to fix the problem but when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you're supposed to do is stop digging. These "solutions" make the problem worse.

LK

If you pay a woman to have sex with you, in most places, that's illegal.

If you pay other people to tell this woman why she should have sex with you, that's not illegal.

Buying votes is illegal. Paying people to tell others to vote the way you want them to should not be illegal.

LK

Do you have a problem with Michael Bloomberg giving $50,000,000 to promote anti-gun politicians?

LK

Other people here have already pointed these issues out separately but I'd like to combine them.

I don't think that anyone can honestly deny how NBC's portrayal of Sarah Palin had a tremendous impact on how the 2008 campaign ended. To this day, a lot of people still confuse Tina Fey's awesome satire for actual Palin statements. Bill Maher, in addition to his million dollar donation to a PAC for Obama's benefit, has constantly given media exposure to politicians who represent his point of view.

Do you have a plan to limit the effect that non-advertising content has on elections?

LK

I wonder if you are familiar with the US Budget. Take a look at it sometime. I don't think it's outside the range of possibility that they might divert funds from frivolous expenses to maintain critical infrastructure.

There is no need to give the government MORE money that they may or may not spend on what it's been earmarked for.

Is the goal here to engage otherwise disinterested parties with the hope of said parties gaining employment?

Doesn't that suggest a shortage of viable, potential employees for those positions? Well? Are we really that short on coders that we have to start chasing currently disinterested people to fill those positions? Assuming for a moment that there is an abundance of currently viable coders on the market, wouldn't this then suggest that "better" employees for this position will be female? Wouldn't that then potentially lead to situations where otherwise disinterested women are being employed over interested men? Who's output would you expect to be better?

How does that make any damn sense?

Why is it the only time Ds and Rs can agree on something is when they're reaching their grubby little hands into my wallet?

Well, in the "grand scheme of things", so are we.

Me? I get rather attached to the source file I've been working on for the past 6 months.

It could also be used to burn off the excess sugar as bio-luminescence to be the light of the party.

Sorry, the joke had to be made.

How can computers be so alien to us when we've designed them? No, alien isn't quite the right word to use here, but rather lacking in development. You might say they are a proto-intelligence; all we've been doing, for the past 50+ years, is building the foundation for real artificial, rational thought.

You can't label something "alien" simply because you don't recognize it.

This must be that "transparency" I've been hearing so much about.

That's a popular canard but it's not always true. Intensity beats extensity, every time.

This is an example of what I mean, Eric Cantor just lost his primary to a no-name Tea Partier that he outspent 27 to 1.

In local, state and national elections the ability to motivate people is what wins elections.

In 2008, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani out-fundraised McCain by 7 million and 4 million dollars respectively and they both lost.

The Democrats were even more interesting on this front. First when he beat the Clinton machine in the 2008 primary. His campaign employed analytics on a level that hadn't been seen before, especially for a political nobody who was barely on the national stage for 4 years. Hillary out-funraised Barack by over 11 million dollars and he soundly beat her.

Obama out-spent McCain by almost 400 million dollars and had it not been for his running mate, McCain would have faced an embarrassing loss in the general election. Beyond that money, Obama had the organization to win.

Obama out-spent Romney by 250 million dollars. Had the election taken place a year later, his victory wouldn't have been assured. Despite a quarter of a billion dollar advantage, the incumbent nearly lost.

The thread that unites all of these cases is that in every instance, the candidate with the most energetic following won. Money helps but it's only the losers who complain when the game that they chose to play doesn't turn out their way.

LK

OK. Fair enough.

Then, you're not really a Libertarian. Your association with any business is purely voluntary, absent any government coercion.

If the government didn't have so much power, there'd be no incentive for businesses to subvert it for their own goals.

LK

Technically, our current system is "voluntary" as well.

See what happens if you don't volunteer to pay.

LK

Look at what's going on around you. It's slowly but surely coming away from the realm of Alex Jones and the like but it's obvious that law enforcement is gearing up for something.

There is something that they expect to happen in the near future that makes them think they'll need weapons of war.

LK