You should be free to use your wealth independently. I think the whole idea of the media is an obvious, dangerous line when it comes to politics.
The founding fathers couldn't anticipate one person directly influencing millions of people every day.
Charles Koch is free to donate the same max amount to a campaign as you or I.
Fox is free to continue providing the news.
But beyond that, no. One man shouldn't be donating to 30 different races, including districts he's never even been to. No, news channels shouldn't provide 1% news and 99% commentary in an attempt to attract viewers to gain advertisers.
It's all broken.
It may all
be broken, but you can't defend your position on any moral or philosophical principle. You don't like who Charles Koch (not even on the list of top 100 donors
according to OpenSecrets.org) donates to, so you want to limit his ability to donate. He can donate to one campaign, but not to 30? Why? Could he be "allowed" to donate to two campaigns? How about three? Where and how and on what principle do you draw the line and say, "No more donations by you"?
Where are your calls to keep George Soros (the number 15 donor) from donating money? Or Thomas Steyer, the number one donor?
Surely you are not just saying that you want people who disagree with you to be prohibited from donating?
As an aside, I do not understand the antipathy toward the Koch brothers. They are (or in the case of David Koch, were) basically libertarians. Many of the causes they support I do not support. But for them to have been presented by--
ahem!--one end of the political spectrum as the source of all evil in politics is just ludicrous.
