Nostr Web Client

1) The government then will imprison / fine any candidate to accept money from Non US citizens, probably doable. But every campaign contribution would have to be KYC’d. This creates a lot of overhead of tracking and compliance which means it will advantage large parties.

2) The government then will imprison or fine anyone who contributes money to a candidate. This would violate free speech and freedom to assemble, perhaps other rights. Not to mention If I’m running a campaign and you make it illegal for someone to give me money, then they just give money to my brother, or a loosely connected Nonprofit. Then my brother or this nonprofit spends their money saying really nice things about me and saying mean things about my competition. Getting my voters registered, etc. If not my brother, then my friends. Or a fan club. It’s a game of Wack-a-mole.

3) The government imprisons or fines any candidate that doesn’t participate in the sanctioned debate event. I would doubt the government could actually require participation.

4) The government gets to imprison or fine any candidate that doesn’t meet a standard of behavior during the debate. (likely enforced asymmetrically against candidates the “government” doesn’t like). Violates free speech unless your standard of behavior is not threatening violence. The abuse would be pretty authoritarian.

Jac 1y ago

I think these are valid concerns, but serving as a public servant has and should mean the abrogation of some civil liberties. No?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

DefiantDandelion 1y ago

You might be right, do you have any examples of what civil liberties are given up currently? If you have some examples I would probably question if when someone is in office that may be one thing as they would have the power at that point, but until they are swore in, I think violating a civil liberty of a running candidate flirts dangerously to giving the government tools to become authoritarian. Atleast that’s my default position.

Jac 1y ago

I doubt candidates or sitting presidents have any meaningful privacy once the secret service is involved.

I doubt presidents have any practical freedom of expression during or after the presidency.

I think it is reasonable that these sacrifices and others be made to apply for and achieve the post of leadership in our country. Being a public servant is a privilege and a burden if done well, and certainly it requires exactly the right person. Most historical leaders who were great suffered and sacrificed, some of them paid with their lives for the honor of serving their people.

More research is needed to flesh out the concept, but personally these are my expectations and our current system is a circus that serves itself at the expense of the people.

DefiantDandelion 1y ago

Civil liberties isn’t the same as privacy. Clearly candidates do need freedom of speech to be able to critique the status quo and persuade changes. And they need the freedom to organize and assemble into protests, rallies, etc. I think civil liberties are key to the actions that Candidates would be performing.

Jac 1y ago

Absolutely, where lifestyle funding sources are concerned, these choices being civil liberties possessed by citizens, presidential candidates should be required to abrogate those liberties in my opinion to maintain neutrality in a position of power.