= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on On saving the world - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (166)
And that's precisely the problem. The net affect of these regulations is to limit political influence to those who are sufficiently motivated. This is already the mechanism behind things like regulatory capture, these laws just make the effect worse.
While allowing to donate millions of dollars extends the political influence to the average person?
My point is that the barrier to entry to donate large amounts of money is lower than the barrier to elude regulations.
Possibly. But the point is how much political influence you get. Influencing politics with direct donations is much more efficient than eluding regulation.
No. Political influence tends to be zero sum, thus the fewer competing sources of influence there are, the more of it you have.
I don't think so. If nobody spends in political influencing, people will still vote for somebody.