> Free speech can generally be constrained
> But either way, no one is arguing that free speech is absolute. This is a straw man.
No it is not. This argument was not used to address something in the thread, it is used as a foundation for the next paragraph (and I needed to say it because on this forum some people actually argued that free speech is absolute in the past, so I cannot assume that you or anyone else agrees with that).
>So? Lots of things distort the democratic process. Why is this different than...
People can vote even in totalitarian dictatorships. It is not the only process that defines democracy. They must have a candidate to vote in the first place. What are the chances that a candidate outside of existing party structures and their fundraising machines will be able to communicate own political views to a sufficient number of voters? How this candidate can secure a party nomination in presence of various special interests groups with money? The list of questions like that is very long. So no, it is not about "poor people who cannot vote". It is a much more complex issue.
>Sounds more like you're sour that your political project isn't popular.
You are too quick to jump to conclusions. I don't have/support any political projects related to USA. That country is not my problem, it's just an object of my curiosity.
This document is about funding transparency, and seems unrelated to what I said. Are you trolling me?
> What are the chances that a candidate outside of existing party structures and their fundraising machines will be able to communicate own political views to a sufficient number of voters?
Very good, actually. Donald Trump was a party outsider, and far different from establishment Republicans. Bernie Sanders was second place in the primaries, twice in a row, and does not identify with the party, he simply invites himself in during election season. They both received tons of funding from various sources, with small contributions making up a large chunk of their funding. Turns out if you're popular money will flow your way.
I do not understand this part. I'm literally explaining why and how in the next sentences.
>Irrelevant, the U.S does not respect the ICCPR regarding freedom of speech.
Proof? As far as I can see, this is incorrect: https://www.aclu.org/documents/faq-covenant-civil-political-...
> Free speech can generally be constrained > But either way, no one is arguing that free speech is absolute. This is a straw man.
No it is not. This argument was not used to address something in the thread, it is used as a foundation for the next paragraph (and I needed to say it because on this forum some people actually argued that free speech is absolute in the past, so I cannot assume that you or anyone else agrees with that).
>So? Lots of things distort the democratic process. Why is this different than...
Every distortion is different and has some unique traits that need to be considered on case by case basis. Example: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/docume...
>...where poor people could not vote
People can vote even in totalitarian dictatorships. It is not the only process that defines democracy. They must have a candidate to vote in the first place. What are the chances that a candidate outside of existing party structures and their fundraising machines will be able to communicate own political views to a sufficient number of voters? How this candidate can secure a party nomination in presence of various special interests groups with money? The list of questions like that is very long. So no, it is not about "poor people who cannot vote". It is a much more complex issue.
>Sounds more like you're sour that your political project isn't popular.
You are too quick to jump to conclusions. I don't have/support any political projects related to USA. That country is not my problem, it's just an object of my curiosity.