Tim Cook and Sundar Pichai agree on the issue of backdooring. Does that mean that either of them wants to give their job to the other?
If you're campaigning issues, then you'll get candidates on board that support those issues. It shouldn't be the other way around.
I don't fully understand how the UK does it, and maybe it's not any better than what we've got, but when you have people flagrantly buying bills and politicians in Washington then we know at the very least that what we have now does not work. If we can't find some way to make it work, then a drastic change is in order.
I disagree. One of the reasons we're in this position is we keep making drastic changes without thinking them through first. I'd like to see some evidence proposed changes are actually workable before they're enacted.
In my life I've seen this cycle maybe five or six times, and each time we fiddle with campaign finance laws they get more complicated, leaving more gray area. When the power brokers act nobody can even tell if they've broken the law.
And how do you deal with third parties who advocate for issues? If Candidate A and Candidate B have a different position on something, it's pretty clear who you're helping if you blanket the airwaves supporting Candidate A's side of the issue even if you're not explicitly addressing either candidate. Does that come out of his budget? Do we restrict unaffiliated groups?
Those sorts of restrictions have been tried in the US, and each time they get circumvented by (officially) unaffiliated groups.