Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... (Score 1) 181

A more textbook example of a violation of the first amendment, and the reason why the first amendment is necessary in the first place, would be hard to find.

If the person has money they still can buy billboard, commercials, etc if they have an opinion, so they still have their freedom of speech right. I don't remember the amendment where the right to spend money on your own election is...

Comment: Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... (Score 1) 181

Having 3 or more candidate elections would ensure more voices are heard, I would think in the US it would probably be 4-6 candidates per election (never will every opinion be heard). The great thing is candidates wouldn't have to tow the party line because they would no longer need two parties to raise funds... Elections would be tighter and there would be more participation (because it's more interesting).

Comment: Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... (Score 1) 181

Publicly funded elections would be awesome (with complex rules ensuring multiple party elections, but that make sure participants to have x numbers of signatures or x percentage of polling). Don't need the Goat Herders of Little Russia North getting too much money for no reason :-)

It is not best to swap horses while crossing the river. -- Abraham Lincoln

Working...