• yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    I see, I see. But isn’t everyone in agreement that political campaigns should be publicly funded? What is there to be upset about?

        • Norah - She/They@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Have you not watched any news on American politics? A two-party system is a cancer to freedom and democracy. All we would be doing is trading one problem, for another much larger problem. The major parties are terrified of the rise of minor parties in the last ~15 years. Neither has held a majority in the Senate since Howard, 2004-2007. That is a good thing.

          What you’re suggesting is to throw the baby out with the bath water.

        • spiffmeister@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          You’re right the bill does not do that. The point I’m making is that the way in which you remove money from politics is important, not just the removal of it. If the bill essentially removed the ability for any other group to run other than the two major parties then it’s not a good bill.

          Do you think that donations are the only way of biasing a party or candidate? How many have gone to work for consultants afterwards?

            • Zagorath@aussie.zoneOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              why people in this thread are defending much, much higher caps on donations

              They’re not. We—I—have been very clear.

              the stated goals of this bill are laudable. We should be trying to minimise how much influence Palmer can have over politics

              But that must not come at the expense of transparency and proper procedure, or at the ability for minor parties and independents to be competitive.