: Don:
: Our current campaign finance laws restrict the amount you can donate to a politician. This is a direct violation of our First Amendment rights...: So you equate dollars with 'free speech.'
Don: No. I equate campaign finace reform with restricting free speech.
: This presupposes that those with a LOT of dollars have a LOT of speech (ability to sway voters who are still duped into thinking there's a difference between Old Coke and New Coke).
Don: No, you have to SPEND those dollers in order to obtain TV time. Which will do you no good if the people don't like what you have to say.
: Therefore the person who pays you determines how much 'free speech' (as translated into dollars donated to a candidate's advertising campaign) you have to 'give.'
Don: No. He doesn't choose how much or to whom I contribute. And he *must* pay me a fair wage, or else I'll find employment elsewhere.
: : Don: I am nobody's boss. My boss has no say in how many votes I have. We both have one vote.
: Not according to your 'free speech' paradigm, pal.
Don: When we are in the voting booth, we both have the same number of votes. I have no idea which of us contributes the most to politics, and it is rather stupid to assume that money contributions have an effectiveness that is proportional to the amount contributed.
