2000 Mules: A tour de force exploring the limits of how many suckers there are willing to pay for fantasy.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

6 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Liberty is at risk due to the influence that special interest money has on our system.  We are on a path to completely bankrupt this country with deficit spending. Quite literally, everybody wants to feed from the plate of of the federal government.  We pretend that government isn't subsidizing  nearly every industry, but the reality is that it does. 

 

Yet you want the federal government to exert even more control over society.  Do you not realize that the federal government exerting so much control over society and having to grow so large to support that control is exactly how we got to where you just described we are in the first place?

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

On 5/24/2022 at 1:50 PM, icanthearyou said:

That is a lie.

No, it's the truth.  If they really wanted to have done something about it so far they would have.  They've had opportunities.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

7 hours ago, AU9377 said:

 

The constitution is a guiding document. It isn't a spiritual document and it can be amended to reflect the needs of an always evolving Republic. The original document failed to recognize women as full citizens.  Black men were partial men.  The country grew and the needed amendments were passed to correct those failures.  The attempt to form a more perfect union is ongoing. 

 

The constitution is not a "guiding document" in our system of government.  It's a governing document.  It is the highest governmental authority we have.  It trumps lower court rulings, legislative actions, and executive actions.

The examples you gave are both examples of constitutional contradictions.  Specific instances that contradicted the overall principle of the document.  In other words, instances that were in and of themselves unconstitutional because they violated the spirit of the rest of the document.  

How is placing a limitation on political speech similar to those examples?  Do you really think censoring political speech goes against the intent of the 1st Amendment in the same way that excluding minorities from possessing the same  inherent rights as white men does?

"I don't like the consequences of upholding these inherent rights," isn't the same as violating the notion of inherent rights.

Plus, like I said earlier, there's a way to fix this without ignoring the constitution.  It would take a long time to fix and would be difficult, but it's not a complicated idea.  You just reduce the size and scope and reach and power of the federal government.  The people who conceived of the idea of a constitution that guaranteed inherent rights never intended for them to co-exist with a behemoth federal government like ours.

Faced with a choice between the federal government that by your own words is the enforcement arm of the very problem you describe and the constitution, I'm taking the constitution and the 1st Amendment.

 

[aubiefifty 16,903]

On 5/17/2022 at 11:24 AM, jj3jordan said:

I have seen it. The data is real as are the tracking. They never say the ballots are fake. Although I believe they are.  They say that only family members can legally cast ballots for someone else.  There is no good reason for one person to visit 10 drop boxes on one night with multiple ballots each time at 3 am wearing gloves. Do you know a plausible explanation for this? And all of the mules did visit certain non profits also. Don’t you think that is just a little weird? If the suspicion was that republicans did this would you be more interested? They have all the names of the people and the non profits. They just did not want to identify them publicly.

that dude went to prison in case you did not know that. and ol D is a known liar. good grief.ok he was sentenced to five years probation. i edited this earlier but did something wrong. but he is known as a liar.

Edited May 26, 2022 by aubiefifty

[AU9377 5,035]

3 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

The constitution is not a "guiding document" in our system of government.  It's a governing document.  It is the highest governmental authority we have.  It trumps lower court rulings, legislative actions, and executive actions.

The examples you gave are both examples of constitutional contradictions.  Specific instances that contradicted the overall principle of the document.  In other words, instances that were in and of themselves unconstitutional because they violated the spirit of the rest of the document.  

How is placing a limitation on political speech similar to those examples?  Do you really think censoring political speech goes against the intent of the 1st Amendment in the same way that excluding minorities from possessing the same  inherent rights as white men does?

"I don't like the consequences of upholding these inherent rights," isn't the same as violating the notion of inherent rights.

Plus, like I said earlier, there's a way to fix this without ignoring the constitution.  It would take a long time to fix and would be difficult, but it's not a complicated idea.  You just reduce the size and scope and reach and power of the federal government.  The people who conceived of the idea of a constitution that guaranteed inherent rights never intended for them to co-exist with a behemoth federal government like ours.

Faced with a choice between the federal government that by your own words is the enforcement arm of the very problem you describe and the constitution, I'm taking the constitution and the 1st Amendment.

 

I don't believe that controlling dark money and its influence is "censoring political speech" in a way that deprives someone of their freedom of speech.  I believe the court got it wrong when they concluded otherwise and I look forward to the day that they revisit the decision.  If you look, you will see that they weighed interests in that case as they do in every case.  You like to blame big government, but the problem is American greed.  The government is no more powerful than the governed allow.

Why is it acceptable that there are individual limitations on donations, but no limitations on donations to Super PACs?  Does that not limit the free speech of individual citizens?

This is a real problem that must be dealt with.  There is no right in the constitution that is absolute with no scale weighing the interests involved.

[AU9377 5,035]

3 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

The constitution is not a "guiding document" in our system of government.  It's a governing document.  It is the highest governmental authority we have.  It trumps lower court rulings, legislative actions, and executive actions.

The examples you gave are both examples of constitutional contradictions.  Specific instances that contradicted the overall principle of the document.  In other words, instances that were in and of themselves unconstitutional because they violated the spirit of the rest of the document.  

How is placing a limitation on political speech similar to those examples?  Do you really think censoring political speech goes against the intent of the 1st Amendment in the same way that excluding minorities from possessing the same  inherent rights as white men does?

"I don't like the consequences of upholding these inherent rights," isn't the same as violating the notion of inherent rights.

Plus, like I said earlier, there's a way to fix this without ignoring the constitution.  It would take a long time to fix and would be difficult, but it's not a complicated idea.  You just reduce the size and scope and reach and power of the federal government.  The people who conceived of the idea of a constitution that guaranteed inherent rights never intended for them to co-exist with a behemoth federal government like ours.

Faced with a choice between the federal government that by your own words is the enforcement arm of the very problem you describe and the constitution, I'm taking the constitution and the 1st Amendment.

 

There are areas in which we need government to work for the good of the people.  Healthcare is one of those areas.  The market alone will not and does not have the incentive or moral compass to deal with caring for the sick that don't have resources.  The ONLY reason that we don't have a single payer system now is the greed involved and the lobbying efforts by insurance companies and the lobbying efforts of all those feeding on government money on a daily basis.  There is no finer example of corporate welfare than the health care system.

[jj3jordan 2,060]

3 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

that dude went to prison in case you did not know that. and ol D is a known liar. good grief.ok he was sentenced to five years probation. i edited this earlier but did something wrong. but he is known as a liar.

No fiddy he is claimed by you to be a liar. He has produced a very good documentary about the election procedures in several states. It's okay if you want to deny it but if you see it you will understand why people are suspicious. Yes he donated too much money to a candidate and was made an example of for it. If only the scales of justice were level for all the other violators of that rule.

[aubiefifty 16,903]

3 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

No fiddy he is claimed by you to be a liar. He has produced a very good documentary about the election procedures in several states. It's okay if you want to deny it but if you see it you will understand why people are suspicious. Yes he donated too much money to a candidate and was made an example of for it. If only the scales of justice were level for all the other violators of that rule.

i will not waste time nor money on this idiot. he has had docs on prime or netflix and he lied through all of them. but you want to tell me this time is the first time is is telling the truth? you need to google this cat because he is crazier than i am.

[jj3jordan 2,060]

1 minute ago, aubiefifty said:

i will not waste time nor money on this idiot. he has had docs on prime or netflix and he lied through all of them. but you want to tell me this time is the first time is is telling the truth? you need to google this cat because he is crazier than i am.

Nobody is a liar because you say so. And I doubt that seriously.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

5 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

The constitution is not a "guiding document" in our system of government.  It's a governing document.  It is the highest governmental authority we have.  It trumps lower court rulings, legislative actions, and executive actions.

The examples you gave are both examples of constitutional contradictions.  Specific instances that contradicted the overall principle of the document.  In other words, instances that were in and of themselves unconstitutional because they violated the spirit of the rest of the document.  

How is placing a limitation on political speech similar to those examples?  Do you really think censoring political speech goes against the intent of the 1st Amendment in the same way that excluding minorities from possessing the same  inherent rights as white men does?

"I don't like the consequences of upholding these inherent rights," isn't the same as violating the notion of inherent rights.

Plus, like I said earlier, there's a way to fix this without ignoring the constitution.  It would take a long time to fix and would be difficult, but it's not a complicated idea.  You just reduce the size and scope and reach and power of the federal government.  The people who conceived of the idea of a constitution that guaranteed inherent rights never intended for them to co-exist with a behemoth federal government like ours.

Faced with a choice between the federal government that by your own words is the enforcement arm of the very problem you describe and the constitution, I'm taking the constitution and the 1st Amendment.

 

Thomas Jefferson disagrees but,,, what does he know.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

51 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Nobody is a liar because you say so. And I doubt that seriously.

I believe you are a chronic liar.

[jj3jordan 2,060]

55 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I believe you are a chronic liar.

Again with the lying. I’m not lying so I don’t care if you call me a liar.  Just because I disagree with you doesn’t mean I am lying. If that’s all you got then just let it go. 

[aubiefifty 16,903]

3 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Nobody is a liar because you say so. And I doubt that seriously.

he has been called out a million times on lies jj. i believe you are afraid to google the man to learn the truth.

[GoAU 1,600]

20 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Thomas Jefferson disagrees but,,, what does he know.

There are a lot of founding fathers you could have chosen for this statement, but I am curious as to why you chose Jefferson?   He was one of the most distrusting of big government.  
 

Honestly curious as to your rationale.  

[icanthearyou 4,463]

3 hours ago, GoAU said:

There are a lot of founding fathers you could have chosen for this statement, but I am curious as to why you chose Jefferson?   He was one of the most distrusting of big government.  
 

Honestly curious as to your rationale.  

His statement about the past not governing the present, the present not governing the future. 

The constitution is a living aspirational document.  To use the textualist, originalist view betrays most of our founders vision.  That textualist/originalist view is about nothing other than control/power, how a few will control the many.

 

[GoAU 1,600]

It is a living document in that there are ways to amend it.   Those exist, and are defined.  It was never intended to be able to be moved quickly or on a whim for a reason.  

[icanthearyou 4,463]

16 hours ago, GoAU said:

It is a living document in that there are ways to amend it.   Those exist, and are defined.  It was never intended to be able to be moved quickly or on a whim for a reason.  

Action or, inaction can be at the "whim" (with or without reason) of power.  Furthermore, we aren't talking about foundational, concrete statements but mostly interpretations. 

The goal of the Constitution is/was to prevent any power from becoming more powerful than the will of the vast majority.

[homersapien 11,440]

On 5/25/2022 at 7:14 AM, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

No, it's correct, and the one who hasn't done his homework is you.  Either that or you are very gullible.

Name a bill the Democrats have introduced that ONLY addresses campaign finance without bundling it with other stuff that they know Republicans won't pass.  In the case of HR-1, a bunch of stuff making voter fraud easier.

The Republicans do the same thing.  They introduced what—6 different bills to dismantle Obamacare...when they knew there was no chance for them to pass.  As soon as they got a majority they magically couldn't agree on a single one.  So how serious were they about overturning Obamacare?  Not at all is my answer.  Same with this.

You introduce legislation you know won't pass so that you can claim to be battling the evil other party who won't cooperate.  It's just a PR campaign.  And it looks like you fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

Money in our politics is probably the largest existential problem we have as a country.  And yes, Democrats are taking full advantage of it, but that's not the issue. The issue is which party is open to changing that. 

Can you state the other issue in that bill at issue that is so significant that it is more important that addressing unregulated political financing?

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/08/most-americans-want-to-limit-campaign-spending-say-big-donors-have-greater-political-influence/

Most Americans want to limit campaign spending, say big donors have greater political influence

By Bradley Jones

 

Americans overwhelmingly support limits on political campaign spending, and most think new laws could effectively reduce the role of money in politics.

A recent Pew Research Center report finds several indications of public concern over campaign spending. There is widespread – and bipartisan – agreement that people who make large political donations should not have more political influence than others, but Americans largely don’t see that as a description of the country today.

And there is extensive support for reining in campaign spending: 77% of the public says “there should be limits on the amount of money individuals and organizations” can spend on political campaigns; just 20% say they should be able to spend as much as they want.

 

A somewhat smaller majority (65%) says that new campaign finance laws could be written that would be effective in reducing the role of money in politics, while 31% say any new laws would not be effective.

Democrats are more likely to support limits on campaign spending than are Republicans, and there is a similar gap in views on whether effective laws could be written. Still, 71% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say there should be limits on campaign spending and 54% say new laws that would be effective in limiting the influence of money in politics could be written. Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, even larger majorities favor spending limits (85%) and think new laws would be effective (77%).

Nearly three-quarters of the public (74%) says it is very important that major political donors not have more influence than others, while an additional 16% view this as somewhat important.

However, only a relatively small share of the public feels this is actually the case today. About a quarter (26%) feel that the statement “people who give a lot of money to elected officials do not have more influence than others” describes the country very or somewhat well; roughly seven-in-ten (72%) say this does not describe the country well, with 43% saying it describes it “not at all well.”

Across the political spectrum, few people think that big donors do not command more influence than others: Only about a quarter of those in both parties say this describes the country well. But Democrats are more likely than Republicans (50% vs. 35%) to say this statement describes the country not at all well.

Those who have contributed to candidates or campaigns themselves in recent years – the vast majority of whom make donations of less than $250 – are particularly likely to reject the characterization of the country as a place where people who give a lot of money to elected officials do not have more influence than others: 50% say this does not describe the country at all well, compared with 41% of those who have not given a political contribution in the past five years.

Contributors more likely to see elected officials as responsive

Those who have contributed money to a political candidate or group in the past year are much more likely than those who have not made a recent contribution to say that their representative in Congress would help them if they had a problem. They are also more likely to say ordinary citizens can do a lot to influence the government in Washington if they are willing to make the effort.

Overall, 37% of Americans say that they feel it is at least somewhat likely their representative would help them with a problem if they contacted her or him. However, about half (53%) of those who have given money to a political candidate or group in the last year believe their representative would help. Belief that one’s member of Congress will help them with a problem is highest (63%) among the subset of donors who have given more than $250 to a candidate or campaign in the past year.

A similar pattern is seen on the question of whether or not people feel ordinary citizens can make a difference. Among those who did not make a political contribution in the past year, about half say there is a lot ordinary citizens can do to influence the government in Washington. By comparison, 66% of donors, including 74% of those who gave more than $250, say there is a lot ordinary citizens can do to make a difference.

Edited May 28, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,440]

Republicans rail against liberal ‘dark money,’ oppose laws to disclose donors

Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell says he continues to oppose new disclosure requirements.

 

March 23, 2022, 5:07 PM EDT

By Sahil Kapur

WASHINGTON — Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has opened up a new line of fire against liberal "dark money" groups that collect large sums of cash from undisclosed donors and use it to promote Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“Before the 2020 election, one far-left dark money group put Judge Jackson on their Supreme Court shortlist,” McConnell, R-Ky., said last week on the Senate floor. “Practically as soon as President [Joe] Biden was sworn in, this group began spending big sums of money boosting Judge Jackson’s profile.”

His office — and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee — have unleashed a series of attacks on left-leaning "dark money," in particular the organization Demand Justice, as Jackson sits in the hot seat this week at her confirmation hearings.

But on Tuesday, when asked by NBC News if he favors new laws requiring the disclosure of donors, McConnell said he does not.

"I'm in favor of the way campaigns and issues are currently funded," McConnell said, referring to independent 501(c)(4) groups that can raise hefty sums of money and conceal donors. "There are rational reasons for not having disclosure for those entities. That's been my position for a quarter of a century and remains my position."

McConnell has long been a fierce opponent of campaign finance restrictions, fighting in Congress and the courts for years. His aides said he was simply charging Democrats with hypocrisy for utilizing dark money. His remarks come amid a shifting political landscape over anonymous money: Conservatives outpaced the left for years, but after President Donald Trump was elected, liberal dark money groups caught up and even overtook their counterparts.

"We're getting our asses kicked" in the dark money race, a Republican operative lamented.

‘Get rid of it on both sides’

At the Jackson hearing Wednesday, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., brought a chart to illustrate the liberal dark money ecosystem. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., assailed “the troubling role of far-left dark money groups” in the Supreme Court debate. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said “dark money groups like Demand Justice have paid millions of dollars” to “promote court packing.”

Democrats say dark money should be outlawed but that they won't unilaterally disarm while it's legal and Republicans are wielding it.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said Tuesday he’s “the first to concede that there is dark money on both sides — and I hope very much we can get rid of it on both sides, shortly, by legislation.”

Democrats support requiring disclosures of donors giving $10,000 or more to a super PAC or 501(c)(4) group in an election cycle. The DISCLOSE Act, a Whitehouse-sponsored bill that has been repeatedly introduced over the last decade, has cleared the House and enjoys overwhelming support among Democratic senators.

Edited May 28, 2022 by homersapien

[icanthearyou 4,463]

On 5/26/2022 at 5:40 AM, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Yet you want the federal government to exert even more control over society.  Do you not realize that the federal government exerting so much control over society and having to grow so large to support that control is exactly how we got to where you just described we are in the first place?

This simplistic view is truly the problem.

[aubiefifty 16,903]

On 5/24/2022 at 6:10 AM, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

1.  I would be willing to bet that not a single poster completely dismissing the movie has actually seen it.  So talk about constructing an argument to support a pre-conceived prediction.

2.  Aren't there pretty tight time constraints involved in contesting an election?  So collecting data like this to present wouldn't really be feasible to actually contest an election (for those using the, "Well if there really was evidence, why didn't it get presented?" argument).

3.  And if so, it would appear that the FFs either didn't anticipate finding evidence well after the election that fraud had occurred or they figured even if that happened it would be better for the country to just move forward regardless.

4.  Did the movie claim the "100 foot" perimeter or is that just the popular criticism?  Geotracking is quite accurate...it's what Uber and Lyft drivers use and it tells you what side of the street a fare is on.  It brings you right to them.  So if the movie is the one using the "100 feet" criteria then I would think that would significantly weaken their case.  If it's just the popular criticism, it's a BS criticism.

5.  I'm not saying that the election was stolen and I don't think this movie proves that it was.  However, if you can't at least admit that the behavior in the movie looks shady as hell—to paraphrase Jeff Foxworthy—you might be a tribal partisan.

 

DINESH D'SOUZA GUILTY OF ELECTION FRAUD | JANUARY 6TH

 

2-3 minutes

---

Dinesh D’Souza is set to release his film documentary 2000 Mules in May 2022. The film is supposed to substantiate evidence of election fraud. (Read Film Summary and Fact Check). 

However, the film does not mention D’Souza’s personal history of committing election fraud. 

In 2014, D’Souza pled guilty and was convicted of felony election fraud. He was sentenced in Manhattan federal court to five years of probation, with eight months served in a community confinement center, after pleading guilty to violating the federal campaign election law by making illegal contributions to a United States Senate campaign in the names of others. He was later pardoned by President Trump in 2018.

On Twitter, Trump said D'Souza was "treated very unfairly by our government” for being convicted for the election fraud felony.

The White House later issued an official statement saying D'Souza was, "in the president's opinion, a victim of selective prosecution" — an opinion that was roundly rejected by a federal judge when D'Souza was sentenced. The White House also noted that D'Souza "accepted responsibility for his actions" and completed community service.

Since his pardon, D’Souza has continued to make election fraud accusations at anyone but himself. D’Souza has claimed the January 6th riots were an inside job carried out by the U.S. government. He even donated $100,000 to support the January 6th rioters who were arrested for trying to interrupt the electoral process. 

 

Trump's tweet on his pardon of Dinesh D'Souza. 

 

Most recently, D’Souza claimed that “2000 mules” harvesting ballots tipped the election results in Biden’s favor, even though countless election audits (both state and GOP funded) have confirmed election integrity and the 2020 election results. 

 

you boys will believe anything good grief.

[GoAU 1,600]

I don’t really know much about D’Souza, but was curious about the comment on election fraud charges.   I’ll admit Wikipedia isn’t the best source of info, but if anyone else is interested here is what it said about his charges. It wasn’t “election fraud” per se, but violating contribution limits by using a straw donor.  Not saying that’s OK either, just sharing what I looked up.  
 

In 2012, D'Souza contributed $10,000 to the senate campaign of Wendy Long on behalf of himself and his wife, agreeing in writing to attribute that contribution as $5,000 from his wife and $5,000 from him. He directed two other people to give Long a total of $20,000 additional, which he agreed to reimburse, and later did. At the time, the Election Act limited campaign contributions to $5,000 from any individual to any one candidate. Two years later, D'Souza pleaded guilty in federal court to one felony charge of using a "straw donor" to make the illegal campaign contribution.^[27][28] He was sentenced to eight months in a halfway house near his home in San Diego, five years' probation, and a $30,000 fine.^[29][30]

 

^{https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinesh_D'Souza}

[aubiefifty 16,903]

10 hours ago, GoAU said:

I don’t really know much about D’Souza, but was curious about the comment on election fraud charges.   I’ll admit Wikipedia isn’t the best source of info, but if anyone else is interested here is what it said about his charges. It wasn’t “election fraud” per se, but violating contribution limits by using a straw donor.  Not saying that’s OK either, just sharing what I looked up.  
 

In 2012, D'Souza contributed $10,000 to the senate campaign of Wendy Long on behalf of himself and his wife, agreeing in writing to attribute that contribution as $5,000 from his wife and $5,000 from him. He directed two other people to give Long a total of $20,000 additional, which he agreed to reimburse, and later did. At the time, the Election Act limited campaign contributions to $5,000 from any individual to any one candidate. Two years later, D'Souza pleaded guilty in federal court to one felony charge of using a "straw donor" to make the illegal campaign contribution.^[27][28] He was sentenced to eight months in a halfway house near his home in San Diego, five years' probation, and a $30,000 fine.^[29][30]

 

^{https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinesh_D'Souza}

oh so that makes him trust worthy now? if he was a lib you guys would be all over it.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

16 hours ago, homersapien said:

 

Can you state the other issue in that bill at issue that is so significant that it is more important that addressing unregulated political financing?

 

That's the whole point.  If it's so important to them, why do they include it with a bunch of stuff that they know—or at least SHOULD know—is a non-starter?  They guarantee its demise out of the gate, same as with the Republicans and Obamacare.

It's a political strategy, not a real attempt to change anything.  Then they (and you) can claim they are standing up for the people and fighting for what's right (while violins play and an American flag waves in the breeze in the background), all the while knowing that it won't pass.  So instead of taking responsibility for that themselves, they get to blame the other party for "blocking" all of their snow-white attempts at virtuous governance.

Again, the Republicans do it too.  They are the masters of it.  I have come to believe that they don't even want to be the majority party any more.  They love that position of not having to do anything they campaigned on because the evil Democrats won't let them.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

On 5/26/2022 at 9:24 AM, AU9377 said:

There are areas in which we need government to work for the good of the people.  Healthcare is one of those areas.  The market alone will not and does not have the incentive or moral compass to deal with caring for the sick that don't have resources.  The ONLY reason that we don't have a single payer system now is the greed involved and the lobbying efforts by insurance companies and the lobbying efforts of all those feeding on government money on a daily basis.  There is no finer example of corporate welfare than the health care system.

O.k.  I have no idea what any of that has to do with what I typed.  I know health care a pet topic of yours.

The bottom line is that you can't have a massive centralized federal government and expect that people aren't going to—one way or another—attempt use it to exert control whenever and wherever they can to benefit themselves.  Anywhere there is a massive sword laying around, people are going to fight for the ability to pick it up and swing it in furtherance of their objectives.

If you voted for Hillary Clinton for POTUS you voted for probably the individual most willing to sell government influence and generally all around greediest grifter to seek that office since I don't know who.  So if you did that I can't see that your concern about American greed is genuine.  It's likely just an excuse to give yourself a moral high ground to argue for the policies you favor.

But tying this to your recent hysteria about guns, the more powerful the tool, the greater the capacity for damage.  Also the greatest capacity for good.  The guy who makes drive-by cryptic statements as though they are fact yet never substantiates them may call that simplistic, but I challenge anyone to actually refute it (what he does is not in any way a refutation).  

The problem is that you think you can limit the damage while preserving the good.  And you are willing to do violence to the first amendment to accomplish this (and btw, calling a person's own campaign for a candidate "dark money" might play well in certain audiences, but all you're talking about is telling citizens that they don't have free speech when it comes to politics).  And, as usual, you completely ignore the direct questions I asked about how you plan to accomplish this practically.

Yes or no:  Posting "AU9377 For President!" would become illegal under your plan?  If not, you've done exactly nothing to achieve your goal.  Again, more people will see that on a decent online platform than they would on a billboard.  The internet IMO has made what you want to do impossible, so there's no point in considering it, really.