Citizens to End SuperPACs

This is my first time encountering the issue myself rather than reading about it in an existing comment, but with JavaScript disabled the site doesn&#x27;t render any text at all; it only showed up after I end enabled it for both this domain and `squarespace.com`. As far as I can tell, the only part of the rendering that&#x27;s dynamic is the content slowly fading in as I scrolled (possibly with some faux scroll-like effect rather than actually native scrolling).<p>I assume from the need to whitelist squarespace.com that this is more likely to due to something done on that platform rather than an intentional decision by a developer, but it&#x27;s unnecessary for a site with some basic text styling and an image or two not to just render the content without animations when JavaScript is disabled. Has anyone here used Squarespace before, and if so, is this typical for sites made with it?

This argument has little chance. To avoid the quid-pro-quo problem, [edit: super]PACs already avoid coordinating with politicians&#x27; campaigns. They create and distribute their own copy, that expresses their donors&#x27; own political views, which is protected speech.<p>If politicians are corrupted by people publically saying nice things about them, that doesn&#x27;t seem a good enough reason to infringe on speech rights. Prosecute the corruption directly.

One person’s freedom of speech is another person’s propaganda undermining everything important in society. How is bribery not a type of free speech for example?<p>Most countries have decided that during elections people spending huge sums of money is not going to lead to good government, but who knows.

It&#x27;s very difficult to parse this <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.citizenstoendsuperpacs.org&#x2F;faqs" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.citizenstoendsuperpacs.org&#x2F;faqs</a><p>Is the idea that they will raise money and then engage in quid pro quo corruption, thus proving it is possible?

If money in politics is so important why wasn&#x27;t Sanders or Bloomberg able to win the Democratic primaries <i>crying emoji</i>

The details seem to be concentrated in this YouTube video - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=fFrVcTmxycg" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=fFrVcTmxycg</a><p>I&#x27;m not pursuaded by this argument. Good luck trying to fight against freedom of speech.

Complaining among the first amendment applying to corporations (you know, like the ACLU) with a second Trump term looming … is a choice.

Next thing you know they&#x27;re going to try to tell us that anonymous political funding by foreign adversaries and non-state actors isn&#x27;t a good idea.

&quot;Get money out of politics&quot; -- one of the all-time juvenile ideas.<p>And ideologically biased as well: they really mean &quot;make it so only people with a lot of time on their hands, like us, will be able to participate in politics.&quot;