Скачать с ютуб Money in Politics: What's the Problem? | 5 Minute Videos | PragerU в хорошем качестве

Money in Politics: What's the Problem? | 5 Minute Videos | PragerU

Is "campaign finance reform" a good way to regulate money in politics? Nationally syndicated, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and best-selling author George Will shows that, despite the innocent name given by its proponents, campaign finance reform is really a euphemism for controlling free speech. If the goal is to get money out of politics, the real solution is to get politics out of money. In other words, shrink government. In five minutes, learn the truth.  📲 Watch our content ad-free on our app: https://prageru.onelink.me/3bas/vgyxvm79 Donate to PragerU: https://l.prageru.com/4jiAT85 Follow PragerU: Instagram ➡️ (  / prageru  ) X ➡️ (  / prageru  ) Facebook ➡️ (  / prageru  ) TikTok ➡️ (  / prageru  ) Script: In my many years in Washington, the most alarming development has been advertised under the soothing title of "campaign finance reform." We Americans are disposed to think that the word "reform" is a synonym for "improvement." But what is called "campaign finance reform" is nothing less than a frontal assault on the first -- the most fundamental -- of our freedoms: The freedom to speak our minds and to participate in politics. This assault is always conducted stealthily, by people who pretend that they only want to regulate money, not speech. They say they are only concerned about the quantity of money in politics. After the 2012 Romney and Obama campaigns spent, combined, $2 billion dollars, the usual cry was heard from reformers. They said: "There is too much money in politics." Forget the fact that Americans spend $2 billion every spring just on Easter candy. But you must remember this: People who say there is "too much money in politics" are necessarily saying three very sinister things. First, they are saying that there is too much political speech; second, they are saying that they know just the right amount of political speech; and third, they are saying that government should enforce the limits they want on the amount of political speech. That is, the government should regulate speech about the government. Over the last few decades, reformers have chipped away at the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. They've done it with various and sundry campaign finance laws such as limiting the amount of money an individual can give to a candidate. But they're no longer satisfied with merely chipping away at the First Amendment. Now they want to take a sledgehammer to it. They admit that what they want -- to restrict free speech -- is incompatible with the Constitution. So, for the first time in American history, reformers calling themselves Progressives are proposing to change the First Amendment in order to empower Congress to decide the quantity, content and timing of political speech. And who would benefit from the speech-restricting rules Congress would write? Well, we know this: every campaign finance law that ever has existed, or ever will exist has been, or will be, written by incumbent legislators. That is, all laws regulating campaigns will favor the re-election of incumbents. Incumbents have enormous electoral advantages stemming from their perquisites of office: name recognition, a catalogue of favors done for constituents, and so on. Hence incumbents generally do not need to spend as much money as their challengers must spend. Hence incumbents write laws making fundraising more difficult. For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/videos/money-...