Originally Posted by Direckshun
That's a really good question, and it gets back to the heart of the OP's issue.
The 1% can fundamentally raise huge dollar amounts extremely casually that take gargantuan efforts from the rest of the electorate to match, if they can be matched at all.
That puts our government under the 1%'s thumbs. See the OP on this.
(And I'd actually expand that to the top 5%, but let's crawl before we can walk, shall we.)
The same cannot be said for any of the non-rich in this country. If we put the kabash on superPACs, and put maximums on campaign donations to something manageable like $2,000 a person or $4,000 a family, than you can't have a small collection of rich people casually, drastically outraising the rest of the electorate should the electorate fail to put forth some massive effort to keep up.
I don't know any grocery baggers who can afford to donate $2000. And forget about it if there's more than one campaign going on at once. It still sounds undemocratic to me (in the way you've used the term).
I think I'd rather stick with free speech.