> Rights aren't an absolute literal things. There are always limitations.
I don't think anyone is arguing that rights are unimpeachable, you just need a VERY good justification. Even for freedom of speech, most would agree that threats, CSAM, or night time noise should be limited, even if they are direct violations of your right to speech.
The problem with this issue is that you need to have a clear and unambiguous rule, that does not cause more harm than good. Let's look at your reasoning.
> 50 people getting a billion USD to advertise how the gay alien lizards are controlling the sheople isn't the same thing because it has an outsized impact.
What about a celebrity? Joe Rogan invites RFK onto his podcast to undermine democrats and spread conspiracies. He has effectively donated his time and platform to a politician. Is that okay under your principle? If it is, why is it different?
> An association of people isn't a human.
This is a pointless distinction because an association is comprised of people. But let's grant that(I would not grant it), would you say the same about other activist organizations? Most Jewish people support Israel, and even without big donors they can pressure politicians in an outsized way through their activist organizations. Should they be silenced?
> And of course, most importantly of all, it's trivially obvious that to preserve a democratic society there need to be restrictions on campaign funding, advertisments and everything around that
This is not trivially obvious. You need to demonstrate that the specific thing you're worried about is actually an issue. If we looked at some studies and they showed that money in politics is a fairly minor issue, would you abandon this pet-issue?
I don't think anyone is arguing that rights are unimpeachable, you just need a VERY good justification. Even for freedom of speech, most would agree that threats, CSAM, or night time noise should be limited, even if they are direct violations of your right to speech.
The problem with this issue is that you need to have a clear and unambiguous rule, that does not cause more harm than good. Let's look at your reasoning.
> 50 people getting a billion USD to advertise how the gay alien lizards are controlling the sheople isn't the same thing because it has an outsized impact.
What about a celebrity? Joe Rogan invites RFK onto his podcast to undermine democrats and spread conspiracies. He has effectively donated his time and platform to a politician. Is that okay under your principle? If it is, why is it different?
> An association of people isn't a human.
This is a pointless distinction because an association is comprised of people. But let's grant that(I would not grant it), would you say the same about other activist organizations? Most Jewish people support Israel, and even without big donors they can pressure politicians in an outsized way through their activist organizations. Should they be silenced?
> And of course, most importantly of all, it's trivially obvious that to preserve a democratic society there need to be restrictions on campaign funding, advertisments and everything around that
This is not trivially obvious. You need to demonstrate that the specific thing you're worried about is actually an issue. If we looked at some studies and they showed that money in politics is a fairly minor issue, would you abandon this pet-issue?