People vote each time they choose buy a good or a service. Isn't it democracy if you have the freedom to choose to whom you give your hard earned money (what is left after taxes)?
Except that's how our government works too, the votes just aren't official and they're _far_ more effective.
For one, a vote is a right. It costs you nothing to vote. A vote has a single purpose.
Buying an item is not the same. You have a fixed amount of money and there is an opportunity cost to buying anything. Moreover, you need to buy certain items to survive.
If you are poor you are not in a position where you have a choice, you have to buy the cheapest items that you need to survive. If you are rich you have more than enough resources to survive, to buy the items you actually want, and more beyond.
When you are forced to vote in a certain way because you cannot afford not to, that is not democracy.
> If you are poor you are not in a position where you have a choice, you have to buy the cheapest items that you need to survive
This is a really dull and tedious way of looking at things. Poor people make choices based on preference all of the time. Especially because food in the US is dirt cheap in historical terms. Sure you aren't buying organic grass fed meat, but you can pick from a wide range of cheap foods. Are your choices more limited, sure, but you still have choices.
Also the idea that you can just reliably buy congresspeople by spending money on ads is a farce.
In other words it did not boil down to "overturning a law" but created a new conservative doctrine that would apply to any law.
If it's not possible to buy politicians with campaign ads you shouldn't have a problem with a law making it illegal to buy politicans with campaign ads, no?
Yet for some reason you are spreading falsehoods about Citizens United, claiming a highly contested 5 to 4 decision turned on what was "obviously unconstitutional" (if it was obvious shouldn't it have been a unanimous decision?) almost like you want people to believe the case's ruling was sounder than it was and are afraid of it being overturned.
You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. "Buying politicans is my right as an American but also doesn't work so stay calm and don't panic over the fact I am buying politicians"
Should I take this as a prompt to assume random crap about you?
CU drastically increased spending by outside, untracked groups, on the ridiculous premise that money is not a corrupting influence in politics. It was the end of meaningful campaign finance regulations.
> Also the idea that you can just reliably buy congresspeople by spending money on ads is a farce.
Why are companies and groups spending so much then, including spending on both sides of many races?