IMPOSSIBLE: "Get Money Out of Politics"

Bernie Sanders says he wants to "get money out of politics." What is his plan to do so? Is it possible? Does money equal speech?Show more

Socialists need to believe it’s possible to “get money out of politics” or else their whole socialist argument falls apart.

Whenever my socialist friends start talking about the NEED for “free” healthcare, housing, education, etc (because after all, what’s isn’t a human right nowadays?! You get a car! You get a car! Transportation is a human right!) then I ask them,

“But the federal government is so incompetent! Do you REALLY want Trump in charge of your healthcare, etc?!”

You know what they say?

“But if we get money out of politics then the system would be less corrupt and work more for us!”

Giving a handful of people in Washington, D.C. absolute power over healthcare, housing, education, jobs, etc can only sound smart if you start from an incorrect premise.

Bernie Sanders imagines “getting money out of politics” by capping individual donations at $500, publicly financing campaigns, and passing a constitutional amendment that “makes clear that money is not speech.”

But money is speech!

This isn’t my opinion. This is a fact.

Let’s use logic…

Imagine if you were a billionaire. Maybe you are sun-bathing on your yacht holding a nice glass of champagne while laying next to an old German woman who’s dressed as a french maid and periodically shouts at you to clean.

Now imagine you want to help candidate Cam Brady win his upcoming reelection.

You donate the campaign maximum of $2800.

But do you stop there? Absolutely not.

(why do we need to get money out of politics)

You can donate an unlimited amount of money to the Friends of Cam Brady Super PAC, but let’s say Bernie Sanders gets his “highly unlikely” constitutional amendment where those contributions are limited too.

Well, you can just turn the Friends of Cam Brady Super PAC into the Cam Brady Times newspaper.

The newspaper can then run an unlimited amount of pro-Cam Brady op-eds and advertisements. Maybe the newspaper will even start a news network or a YouTube channel. Maybe turn the whole business into a multi-media conglomerate by creating multiple newspapers, networks, movies, apps, and events.

Should we then limit contributions to the newspaper? Or maybe the government will conclude, “No, that’s not a real newspaper. It’s too partisan and fake! The state will instead sponsor the New York Times as an official source of truth!”

There are a million ways to influence voters without writing a single check directly to the candidate.

In fact, I’d argue trillions of dollars spent on non-political political messaging via Hollywood, Mainstream Media, and Silicon Valley have been far more influential in driving the youth to the political left because they're less on guard against their political agenda than they are in watching a political ad.

The simple truth is that money HAS NEVER BEEN nor EVER WILL BE out of politics!

Some retort that the talking point is simply a shorthand for “get BIG money out of politics,” but that’s an even more absurd notion.

H*ll is paved with good intentions.

Banning hard money will drive it underground.

Just look at modern history!

With the advent of stricter controls on hard money what did we see? We saw the growth of Super PACs, which has been a terrible thing for our body politic because since a politician has to legally distance himself from their actions then the Super PACs can be especially vicious and negative on behalf of the candidate without the candidate ever having to get his hands dirty.

If Bernie Sanders got his way our politics would only become MORE corrupt, tribal, and negative.

This is because political power would shift from politicians to kingmakers.

Politicians would have less funds, which means they’d become more dependent upon currying favor with political elitists in order to get out their messages via their platforms.

Do you really want to create a political system where a few people in the shadows are holding all the strings?

(why do we need to get money out of politics)

It’s interesting too because socialists are usually the first to argue for legalizing drugs and prostitution because they think it will be healthier for society if we bring it above ground, but then they don’t see how their campaign finance laws will drive what should be transparent underground.

In the end, if you aren’t willing to get BIG money out of Hollywood, social media, mainstream media, and corporate advertising then you do not actually want to get “BIG money out of politics.”

So please stop talking nonsense!

(why do we need to get money out of politics)

I, however, want to make campaign finance 100% transparent. You should be able to donate however much money you’d like to whoever you want and then the campaign just has to be transparent with where their money is coming from and how they are spending it.