I made it then, and I'm making it now. One of the best ways we can fix campaign finance is by holding campaign financiers responsible for what they're funding.

That is a very dark world where the minority need to legitimately fear the majority. No thank you.

In this case, the minority are rich and powerful people.

Not really, the minority is anybody who's ever had the wrong opinion on anything that sufficiently socially powerful people think is worth burning the heretics over. If you really need to get at somebody, it may in fact be sufficient to just make something up:

https://twitter.com/nodevember/status/771520648191483904

> Not really, the minority is anybody who's ever had the wrong opinion on anything that sufficiently socially powerful people think is worth burning the heretics over.

How is being uninvited as a keynote speaker being burned at the stake? Or even remotely comparable to the policies that Donald Trump has advocated (killing the families of suspected terrorists, jailing political opponents) or bragging about sexual assault, which is illegal?

I can see why folks had an issue with Eich being forced out of Mozilla, but the world isn't black and white when it comes to "free speech". Allowing free speech doesn't mean that you should be shielded from the consequences from the world at large.

I don't follow what you're trying to say. Could you add a few words?

"Holding people responsible" means punishing, in one way or another. Not doing business with them, trying to get them tossed out of a group, get them fired, shamed, etc. And who is going to do this to whom? Those with the popular opinion would be doing it to those with the unpopular opinion.

Why not make voters responsible.

That's a two-edged sword. A couple of examples --

1) Germans forced to march through an extermination camp because their cowardice in not stopping Hitler made them responsible for his actions.

2) Osama bin Laden justifying 9/11 by saying citizens are responsible for the actions of the US Govt.

Do you like either interpretation of your statement?

It works on both ends:

- Voters holding candidates responsible for where their support comes from, and whether that will influence their actions in office. - Consumers / collaborators / whatnot holding financiers responsible for what they are funding.

I, as a voter, do choose to take into account who is funding a candidate's campaign.

I, as a consumer / potential employee / human, take into account the speech funded by someone I'm intending to conduct a transaction with / form a friendship with, as evidence of their character.