I truly don't understand the content of that video, perhaps I'm ignorant of the way the US system works.

I see the donation/lobbying system as something wealthy individuals/groups can use to amplify their voices in political discussion. Equating limiting the amplification factor with censorship seems like a real stretch.

If policy makers are incentivised to make policy which benefits certain groups for reasons other than what best serves their constituents (i.e. to secure party donations) that to me is the essence of corruption.

Anonymous account, 2 weeks old, no significant activity. I'm going to call this either a bot or a Russian account. Even HN is not immune to them.

If "more freedom" == "those who have more money are buying politicians", it doesn't sound like more freedom at all, no?

See how well it works in the context of monopolistic ISPs which basically pay off state legislatures to write laws that ban competition. Who in their right mind would write such awful laws? Only totally clueless or corrupted puppets.

> In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread. - Anatole France

Citizens United allows citizens both rich and poor the freedom to buy politicians.

Hah, I'm not a bleeding heart or anything but that quote is both hilarious and (sadly) accurate.

Sadly, neither Right Wing Watch nor Media Bias has an entry for PragerU, although the former does have some interesting entries for its founders. Regardless, Wikipedia helps here:

> Prager University (often stylized as PragerU) is a 501(c)3 non-profit conservative digital media organization.

I'm all for good ideas, but given what the word conservative has come to mean in the context of American politics, I am going to call BS on this one and not bother wasting my time watching some right wing "intellectual" spin lies in the form of "common-sense".

Ignorance is bliss

Who is "we" in that construction?