I'm fully aware of the Supreme Court's recent rulings equating unlimited campaign spending with free speech. I disagree with their reasoning. Other democracies limit both overall campaign spending as well as the length of election campaigns, and those democracies function quite well. When the Court says, "This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of money," it ignores obvious alternative methods of mass communication. In the U.S., for example, we have public broadcasting networks in both radio and TV that could be used to give every candidate ample and equal opportunities to reach the public. The Court citing "free speech" as if it always triumphs every other consideration ignores the fact that our society and our courts often limit the free speech of individuals when not doing so would cause harm to other individuals or to society as a whole. Aside from that, I do not agree that campaign spending equals free speech. It comes down to whether or not we believe unlimited campaign spending distorts and corrupts the political process. I believe the evidence is that it clearly does, and I believe that issues like net neutrality illustrate that. Many of the representatives who signed Letter 2 that was referenced in the Ars Technica article represent areas where Internet access is very limited. They are betting that since so many of their constitutents don't have home Internet access, most of them won't even notice their actions on net neutrality or even know what it is. In fact, I doubt most of those representatives could explain net neutrality if asked. They got contributions and signed the letter they were asked to sign because that's how the campaign funding business works.

While it may be legal for a representative to vote a certain way, if they're voting that way because they're getting a payoff to vote that way, it's a bribe in my book. Calling it a campaign contribution is just semantics. Our system of unlimited spending on political campaigns enhances the likelihood that votes on issues such as net neutrality will go the way the highest bidders want it to go.

So if I'm a certified public accountant whose job depends on me taking classes every two years to remain certified and someone gives me cash to spend any way I want to fudge their books, it's a bribe; but if they pay for my classes and recertification to fudge their books, it's not a bribe? Sorry, I'm not seeing the distinction there.

Actually they are placing a $600 bet that they'll get a product in return that will be the envy of all their friends and will also be a really nice smartphone that's also a really nice full-fledged computer. People place bets much larger than that thousands of times a day in Vegas, where the odds that they'll win aren't nearly so good. Heck, people place bets much larger than that thousands of times a day on all kinds of investment opportunities. It's their $600 and they're taking a chance with it. There's nothing new at all about people spending their money that way.

Yes, unbelievable, isn't it? It's like when I went online to order a new laptop a few weeks ago - the private, for-profit company there also asked me for money. The nerve.

From "A Reporter's Notebook" Portsmouth, N.H., 1900: "As 1900 dawns, the Seacoast faces a shocking new technology. Is electricity safe? Is it just another toy for the rich? Do we really need it when gas lights work just fine and horses are easier to ride than cars? Should we develop this new science or leave the genie in the bulb?... A few automobiles have already made their way through our fair city, lured by the nearby sandy beaches, fine hotels, Revolutionary history and panoramic scenery. Hoards more of them cannot be far off, their engines fouling our already gritty air, their horns blaring as they compete for their share of the muddy downtown streets with the trolleys and the horse carts... Thankfully there is legislation planned that will require all motorcars to be proceeded by a man on foot waving a warning flag. This is certainly a commendable safety measure and should be supported."

"Now, good luck getting the VA to allow us to implement it." I get what you are saying, but taking the time and making the effort to overcome that kind of thing is why undertaking this kind of work is more difficult than just creating apps. And that's why, I think, she says that our best minds are being wasted when they could be put to work addressing issues like that.

If you read her opinion about government in the article and her bio (and the author is a woman), you'll see she is a conservative, and what she's arguing is precisely that people need to take more personal responsibility for their country's pressing problems and quit blissfully ignoring them. And, no, the problems are very complex - if they were simple, you wouldn't need bright minds to take them on.