Comments by "Deborah Freedman" (@deborahfreedman333) on "‘Eye-popping spending’ in Georgia Senate runoff" video.

  1. Nah, my four year old grandson makes more sense.
    1
  2. Short answer: SCOTUS made it thus. Long answer: We used to have laws that limited how much a candidate could spend, and also make PACs (political action committees) more transparent, and limit how much they could spend. But, our Supreme Court decided 1. Money is speech. 2. Corporations have the same rights as citizens, therefore they have the same right to free speech. Therefore, any limit on what a person or corporation gives a candidate or PAC, and how much money that candidate or PAC spends, is a limitation on free speech, and forbidden by the first amendment. Further, as citizens have a right to privacy, so do corporations, so it is unconstitutional to require PACs to show who is giving to them, and how much they get.
    1