Cash in Politics: What’s the Problem?|5 Minute Video
Is” project financing reform” a good way to regulate cash in politics? Nationally syndicated, Pulitzer Prize-winning writer and very popular author George Will reveals that, in spite of the innocent name given by its proponents, campaign finance reform is truly a euphemism for controlling totally free speech. If the goal is to get money out of politics, the real service is to get politics out of cash. Simply put, shrink federal government. In five minutes, learn the truth..
PragerU is experiencing serious censorship on Big Tech platforms. Go to https://www.prageru.com/ to enjoy our videos free from censorship!
SUBSCRIBE https://www.prageru.com/join/.
Take PragerU videos with you everywhere you go. Download our totally 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 disconcerting advancement has been marketed under the calming title of “project financing reform.” We Americans are disposed to think that the word “reform” is a synonym for “enhancement.” However what is called “campaign finance reform” is absolutely nothing less than a frontal assault on the first– the most essential– of our freedoms: The freedom to speak our minds and to take part in politics. This assault is constantly carried out stealthily, by people who pretend that they only wish to control money, not speech. They say they are only worried about the amount of cash in politics.
After the 2012 Romney and Obama campaigns spent, integrated, $2 billion dollars, the usual cry was spoken with reformers. They said: “There is excessive money in politics.” Forget the fact that Americans invest $2 billion every spring simply on Easter candy.
You need to remember this: People who state there is “too much cash in politics” are always saying 3 very ominous things. First, they are saying that there is excessive political speech; second, they are saying that they understand simply the right amount of political speech; and third, they are saying that government must impose the limits they want on the amount of political speech. That is, the federal government should manage speech about the federal government.
Over the last couple of years, reformers have actually tried the First Amendment guarantee of complimentary speech. They’ve done it with various and sundry campaign financing laws such as restricting the amount of cash a person can provide to a prospect. However they’re no longer pleased with simply trying 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. For the first time in American history, reformers calling themselves Progressives are proposing to change the First Amendment in order to empower Congress to choose the amount, content and timing of political speech.
Incumbents have massive electoral benefits originating from their perquisites of office: name acknowledgment, a catalogue of prefers provided for constituents, and so on. For this reason incumbents typically do not need to spend as much money as their oppositions should invest. Hence incumbents compose laws making fundraising harder.
For the total script, see https://www.prageru.com/videos/money-politics-whats-problem.
source
Cash in Politics: What’s the Problem? Is” project financing reform” a great way to regulate money in politics? If the objective is to get cash out of politics, the real option is to get politics out of cash. They say they are only concerned about the quantity of money in politics.
You should remember this: People who say there is “too much cash in politics” are always saying 3 really sinister things.
