Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Ceilings to keep the wave of cash out.

This seems to be a bit of a duel. Trump of course is running on the grounds that the is an outsider that isn't influenced by the political system, Coca Cola, the Koch brothers, etc. Bernie Sanders is running as an anti-establishment socialist. They each have their funds, and who supplies them is very important.  Good, all find and dandy. But who is going to win and why? Who has the most funding, from where, and does that do anything? Someone could quickly come to the conclusion and say he who spends the most wins the most. That may not necessarily be true, but it is strongly supported. 

  My question after reading this article isn't about the article at all. Why is spending unlimited in the election? Why do the Koch brothers have the ability to provide funding and sway an election at all? To me, the solution to the Koch Brothers, to the corruption, and to the electoral circus is a price ceiling. I feel the best option to hinder the "buying of politicians" is to take away the funds. I'd like to see the consequences of limiting the amount of money a politician can spend on elections. They do this in France and I believe that it would sold multiple problems at once. 

 What do you guys think?

No comments:

Post a Comment