You can use arrow keys to navigate in the map.
They give special interest groups and big banks a larger say in government than citizens, thus creating a false democracy.
You can potentially run into free speech issues with this.
If anything, candidates that are backed by super PACS become puppets of special interest, and therefore lose freedom of speech. Candidates who do not receive funds through super PACS are not bound to any sort of political agenda.
I'm not disagreeing with you on that point. I am disagreeing on the following:
There does not seem to be a way to limit the actions of a non-coordinating super PAC without impeding on the first amendment. You're allowed to speak about a politician. You're allowed to buy an ad. Why not both?
Should the constitutional rights take precedence over maintaining a pure American democracy?
Yes. Constitutional rights are there to restrict government action. If we want them to be able to regulate this, it would require a constitutional amendment.
If we let it slide on this, that opens the rights up to further erosion. We already see this with the fourth amendment.
The First Amendment is regulated all the time (for instance, threats, bribery and profanity in advertising are outlawed). Because the super PAC besmirches the nature of American democracy, they should be regulated.
I would still prefer that it be done in an amendment. The precedent that has been set by the above examples is (in my opinion) a bad one. It allows decisions to erode our rights without our input.
If anything, the right that is being eroded is the citizens right to have equal say in government. By eliminating super PACS, we effectively give the people more power.
I do agree that the rights of citizens outlined by the constitutional amendments are being infringed upon, specifically the fourth amendment.
I do think that super PACs are bad for the country
The Supreme Court's ruling, that spending money on elections is the equivalent of free speech. means that the Supreme Court views some of us as less free than others.
As long as they aren't initiating aggressing on anyone, you can't make a moral claim on what people spend their money on.
If you want to argue that politicians inherently do initiate aggression on people as part of their job. And therefor superpac funding enables that aggression. Then I agree.
You have a fragment, a run-on and misspelled word (therefore) in your premise.
You can absolutely dictate what people don't spend their money on. According to your logic, the government outlawing bribery is immoral; Bribery is not always aggressive, and therefore, by your standards, it is immoral for the government to outlaw it.