Home Cultural Issues Other Cultural Issues Prager 5 Minute Videos Money in Politics: What’s the Problem? | 5 Minute Video
Prager 5 Minute Videos

Money in Politics: What’s the Problem? | 5 Minute Video

49
2
0



Is “campaign finance reform” a good way to regulate money in politics? Nationally syndicated, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and best-selling author George Will shows that, despite the innocent name given by its proponents, campaign finance reform is really a euphemism for controlling free speech. If the goal is to get money out of politics, the real solution is to get politics out of money. In other words, shrink government. In five minutes, learn the truth. 

🚨 PragerU is experiencing severe censorship on Big Tech platforms. Go to https://www.prageru.com/ to watch our videos free from censorship!

SUBSCRIBE 👉 https://www.prageru.com/join/

📲 Take PragerU videos with you everywhere you go. Download our free mobile app!
Download for Apple iOS ➡ https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/prage…
Download for Android ➡ https://play.google.com/store/apps/de…

📳 Join PragerU’s text list! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru

SHOP! 🛒 Love PragerU? Visit our store today! https://shop.prageru.com/

Script:

In my many years in Washington, the most alarming development has been advertised under the soothing title of “campaign finance reform.” We Americans are disposed to think that the word “reform” is a synonym for “improvement.” But what is called “campaign finance reform” is nothing less than a frontal assault on the first — the most fundamental — of our freedoms: The freedom to speak our minds and to participate in politics. This assault is always conducted stealthily, by people who pretend that they only want to regulate money, not speech. They say they are only concerned about the quantity of money in politics.

After the 2012 Romney and Obama campaigns spent, combined, $2 billion dollars, the usual cry was heard from reformers. They said: “There is too much money in politics.” Forget the fact that Americans spend $2 billion every spring just on Easter candy.

But you must remember this: People who say there is “too much money in politics” are necessarily saying three very sinister things. First, they are saying that there is too much political speech; second, they are saying that they know just the right amount of political speech; and third, they are saying that government should enforce the limits they want on the amount of political speech. That is, the government should regulate speech about the government.

Over the last few decades, reformers have chipped away at the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. They’ve done it with various and sundry campaign finance laws such as limiting the amount of money an individual can give to a candidate. But they’re no longer satisfied with merely chipping away at the First Amendment. Now they want to take a sledgehammer to it.

They admit that what they want — to restrict free speech — is incompatible with the Constitution. So, for the first time in American history, reformers calling themselves Progressives are proposing to change the First Amendment in order to empower Congress to decide the quantity, content and timing of political speech. And who would benefit from the speech-restricting rules Congress would write? Well, we know this: every campaign finance law that ever has existed, or ever will exist has been, or will be, written by incumbent legislators. That is, all laws regulating campaigns will favor the re-election of incumbents.

Incumbents have enormous electoral advantages stemming from their perquisites of office: name recognition, a catalogue of favors done for constituents, and so on. Hence incumbents generally do not need to spend as much money as their challengers must spend. Hence incumbents write laws making fundraising more difficult.

For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/videos/money-politics-whats-problem

source

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]
Post Views: 2
Tags 2012 Electionbarack obamaCampaign Finance Reformdennis pragerfirst amendmentFirst Amendment Rightsfree speechGeorge Willmitt romneyPolitical Speechpragerprager universityThe Dennis Prager Show
Previous Post
1698352296_maxresdefault.jpg

The Border Crisis and the New Politics of Immigration

Next Post
1695913517_maxresdefault.jpg

Four Lies the Culture Tells About the Truth

Related posts

Leave your comment

49 Comments

  1. I know this video is old but if anyone is reading this comment right now, does this video basically imply that are voices are to only be heard through the money we use to fund candidates rather than our natural rights to speak?

  4. The US has the best Politicians and Judges money can buy. This is the most cynical BS from Prager I have ever heard. You're not even pretending to believe that you are not advocating for "pay to play" or " Quid pro quo." Maybe we should stop paying Politicians and let them legislate for tips.

  10. When Elites (Top 1% for instance) are able to DUMP MILLIONS of dollars into a PAC or SUPER PAC, often anonymously, and Politicians at State and Federal level NEED MILLIONS of dollars to be Elected or Reelected, there exists a CORRUPT FORCE that allows Elites to have UNDUE INFLUENCE (in some cases OUTRIGHT OWN) Candidates/Elected Officials.

    A SOLUTION to this CORRUPT system of MONEY TALKS in D.C. starts with TERM LIMITS so that no Elected Official is apt to take BRIBES in the first place.

    Coupled with a HARD LIMIT of $1,000 Per Donor/Per Election. They can spread that money out to whatever Candidate(s) they support, but NO MORE than $1,000 to be split. NO Corporations, Lobbyist Groups, Unions, or anyone else should be allowed to donate. That way it goes back to 1 Donation per Donor, with the ability of Average People to have an EQUAL VOICE in Congress.

    Also ban Paid Lobbyists and make it Law the NO Elected Official may have ANY income (side job, book deal, speaking engagement, previous business while in office) other than the Congressional salary. That way, influence is about HOW MANY PEOPLE support an idea or agenda, NOT HOW MUCH MONEY do a FEW PEOPLE have to BUY what they want.

    That's the way we get OUR country back to being a Government OF, BY and FOR the PEOPLE.

  13. I remember coming across this video several years ago. This has to be one of the least thought out arguments ive ever seen. By his very logic, the government is infringing on our freedom of speech every day via any form of taxation in general.

  17. Republicans rule the World, they feed the GREED machine and like things the way they are. So they install a highly Democratic president who lights the country on FIRE throughout his term.. nobody ever votes Democrat again.. the old-time wealthy Republicans get their way, forever. This was planned, ALL OF IT.

  20. Okay. ahem Big corporations spending vast sums of money bribing people to do their dirty work. That’s the problem.

    Seriously the mental gymnastics is insane. The NYT spends money to pay people to be a watchdog of our government. Big corporations spend money to pass legislation that they want and put who they want in charge, thereby running the country. That’s the difference.

  21. This is why I'm proud to have my conservative intellectual side and then my thug mentality side is used to defend myself from insane left wingers,after all it's my thug mentality that helped me defend myself from a violent left winger I later realized had been indoctrinated by the left

  22. The problem with this argument is that people have a set amount naturally that they can give of speech and effort. This is as equal as can be. It can't be perfect because some people will be unable to speak as quickly because of disability or what have you, but that's outside of our control.

    Whereas with money if you have little the amount your voice through said money can be amplified is small, and if you are so wealthy no amount of spending possible would make any difference in your lifestyle your voice could be amplified exponentially more than the former person.

    That's why this video and philosophy is garbage.

  25. For those wondering, the reason this video was made in the first place is that PragerU is funded by a Fracking company that has invested tens of millions of dollars into Super PACs for Republican Conservative politicians. So PragerU had to make a video about why money in politics isn't a bad thing, to please their billionaire backers. Go figure.

  29. Glad to see the comment section full of people calling out the BS. Impossibly large corporate funds that write off their bribes in taxes anyways only bribe because it's such an effective tool to advance their financial goals. The .1% owning politicians, people can just be lied to, it's all sick

  33. I'm sorry, but there is too much money in politics. In fact, that problem has contributed to the far left, a thing that PragerU has always spoken out against (for example, when MacKenzie Bezos funded critical race theory, or when George Soros funds all sorts of leftist causes).

  47. We need to break the status quo of money in politics, need campaign finance reform, need to overturn citizens united which has led to super PAC spending. These are the Democratic platforms: Hillary ran on it, Biden ran on it. We need a blue Senate to actually execute campaign finance reform. For the first time, I feel like it's within reach.