[Anti-Corruption] HR 1: For the People Act of 2019

Im not and you didn't understand what i wrote at all. A person can't tell me they think its ok for CNN or Fox News to spend billions pushing programming that has a political agenda, and then at the same time the person tells me they think Citizen's United making a movie saying Hillary would be a bad president is a threat to our democracy. Its stupid. Neither of these should be regulated. free speech and what not.

why? both funding jsut leads to political messaging. why is CNN spending billions on political messaging to millions ok, but if I gave a billion to some political candidate to spread political messaging its a problem?

CNN does nothing but bash republicans and promote democrats non-stop and they spend billions a year doing it. You are apparently ok with this but have a problem with me or some else donating to a candidate to promote themselves. Why? its all the same.

 

Wait, who is against political movies of any kind?

There is a huge difference in a network pushing politics this way or that and a billionaire paying politicians to favor policies that favors them. The latter is corruption. Plain and simple.

 

Essentially, talanvor and fellow republicans don't want visibility into how large companies, industries and PACs can spend huge sums to influence voting and so he complains that CNN is pro-Democrat.

 

From a democratic perspective there is no difference. What you are describing is a politician taking a campaign donation for the purpose of winning their next election. To get this money the politician must presumably go against their constituents' will (or else whats the problem?) which would hinder them in the next election......

The people still get to decide.

The corruption you are describing is basically impossible to prove. If company X gave money to politician Y are they doing it to change politician's Y vote or because politician Y agrees with them already and company X wants politician Y to be elected. It would be very difficult to determine which event happened legally speaking.

 

The people get to decide, that's true, but they need a little more information.

You are right that a politician could already be for something and get money because of that and its almost impossible to prove in most cases if their opinions on something were swayed by a 'donation' to their campaign or if they are just benefitting from sharing the opinions of rich donors...

The people should still know who is paying who. I'd like to know that Company X is behind a politician or another wealthy donor. I feel like if you commit a certain amount of money to a politician your anonymity should no longer be a privilege, especially when you are paying more than one politician, at this point, you're a power player and you should stand behind your ideas.