I can't let this go! Someone help!
More on freedom of election speech (previous moon-barks here, here, and here).
What if we were running a high school debate, and to be argued was this: Be it resolved that there is too much money in politics.
I obviously take the NO side to this debate, mostly on principle. And while I'm happy on occasion to stand on principle, I would prefer to have principle backed up by the preponderance of evidence.
So back to the debate question: if I were forced to argue the affirmative, what supporting materials would I use? After considerable thought, I can't come up with a single remotely provable assertion to support the resolution. Even a strict reading of Harper v. Canada indicates that were it not for the Supreme Court's alleged belief in "deference to Parliament" (i.e. if there were no restrictions, and someone sued to have them enacted), the ruling would have been 9-0 for Harper.
As such, I seek help. Whether out of ideological conviction or playful contrariness, I ask for submissions of any or all of the following:
- Statistical or other data showing a cause-effect relationship between a party or issue's funding and number of votes received
- Any example of an election result that was "bought" with paid speech (and preferably, if you also deem it as "unfair", but I don't want to make this too tough)
- Any personal or other anecdotal evidence of someone changing their vote because of paid speech, and where you would characterize this as "unfair"
- Any example of a person, organization, or corporation who chose to spend money on election speech, where the government would have been wise and fair to prohibit this choice
Anyone? I make assurances that I will try to evaluate any submissions without prejudice. The only argument I dismiss preemptively is, "that's money we could be spending on health care", and variations thereof. I could also spend my beer & gum money on noble and charitable causes, and I will not debate that, at least not today.
UPDATE 420PM: I don't care if it's an essay, or just a link.
I am also willing to entertain arguments on simple principle, regardless of supporting evidence, with the important caveat that it must not contain as a central premise that other people are dumber than you.