The very idea that some authority may limit or control a candidate's spending is a tacit admission, by those who espouse it, that they fear how far a candidate's message is spread or how often it is repeated or they fear that their neighbors are so weak minded that they can be purchased. This is belief in democracy? On the contrary, it is a unwitting, unconscious, but honest confession that tyranny is stronger and more effective. It is a confession that, in action, the one who espouses such an idea actually has no faith in democracy and the ability or the viability of political representation at all.
It never ceases to amaze me how the beliefs that some people preach are at variance with the contrary beliefs their actions reveal.
