New Questions for the GOP Candidates

Taxes, war powers, the Federal Reserve, and more

The Republicans are having another presidential debate Tuesday October 18 in Las Vegas, telecast at 8 p.m. eastern time on CNN. Here are some questions it would be nice to see asked, or, better yet, answered.

The first few are for Governor Romney: Your plan is to cut the capital gains tax to zero for taxpayers earning $200,000 a year or less. Why should a beach bum with $2 million in lottery winnings or an inheritance sitting in a brokerage account generating $199,000 a year in capital gains pay no federal tax on that, while someone getting up every morning and doing backbreaking hard work would get no tax cut on wages under your plan?

Governor, Newt Gingrich asked you in the last debate why you picked $200,000 as your threshold for “rich,” which is lower than even Barack Obama’s $250,000 threshold. Do you think anyone making more than $200,000 a year is “rich”? Why not just treat everyone the same rather than dividing people by income?

The next few are for Herman Cain: In the last debate you said Alan Greenspan was the Federal Reserve chairman you most admired in the past 40 years. What do you make of the criticism that he kept interest rates too low for too long and in so doing helped inflate both the tech stock bubble and the housing bubble?

What would the tax rates be in the “empowerment zones” you plan to establish? How would the boundaries of those zones be set? Why not treat everyone the same rather than setting up special zones with lower tax rates than everywhere else?

Your 9-9-9 plan, as I understand it, would get rid of the home mortgage interest tax deduction and also impose a 9 percent national sales tax on sales of new homes. What would that do to a real estate and construction industry in this country that is already hurting?

For Rick Santorum: Senator, in 2006 you lost your re-election bid in your home state of Pennsylvania by 18 percentage points. You have little executive experience and little private sector experience. Why do you think you lost in 2006, and if you were nominated, how would you get the Pennsylvanians who voted against you as their senator in 2006 to support you as their president in the 2012 election?

For all the candidates: Last Friday, President Obama announced he had begun sending about 100 American ground troops into Africa to go after the Lord’s Resistance Army and its leader. Do you approve of that use of the American military and do you agree that President Obama had the authority under the Constitution to launch the action without getting prior approval from Congress?

After winning election partly on the basis of his opposition to the war in Iraq, President Obama has used American military power in Libya, Yemen, and now Uganda, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, while also increasing troop levels in Afghanistan. Which of those military actions, if any, do you support, and why?

What is your view of both Wall Street and the Occupy Wall Street protests?

Do you think Gary Johnson, a Republican presidential candidate who served two terms as governor of New Mexico, should be included or excluded from future debates?

As president, what would be your policy on the soundness and strength of the dollar?

What are five things the federal government is now doing that you would stop if you became president?

What are your views on federal farm subsidies, including those on crops used for ethanol and other biofuels? How about your views on tariffs on imported farm products?

Ira Stoll is editor of FutureOfCapitalism.com and author of Samuel Adams: A Life.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    I like the "Where the fuck is two-term governor Gary Johnson?" question.

  • Old Mexican||

    I like the "Who the fuck is two-term governor Gary Johnson?" question myself.

  • ||

    That's the question the media asks that pisses me off.

  • SIV||

    It's still mostly Johnson's fault for running a half-ass vanity campaign.

  • Trig||

    I like how Reason never fails to support Johnson but has to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the same for Paul.

  • ChrisO||

    Jeezus Christ, another fucking debate already??? I guess it helps to weed out the weak members of the herd, but I don't seem to recall this many debates from either side in 2008.

  • ||

    They might be necessary if they actually included all of the candidates and involved real issues.

  • ChrisO||

    Well, there is that. I would also add that I wish there was a way to have the candidates directly confront each other. There are too many of them to practically make that work, but the present format amounts to little more than dueling soundbites.

    All we're likely to get is a bunch more of the same nonsense and focusing on RomneyPerryCain.

  • ||

    If they understood what Paul was saying, I'm sure they'd include him, but his soundbites led to a rash of suicides in the spin room.

  • ||

    I would also add that I wish there was a way to have the candidates directly confront each other.

    Allow each candidate to ask one other candidate a direct question, with a follow-up. Easy, and entertaining.

  • ||

    Who was weeded out. Santorum in all his gooey goodness keeps showing up, along with Romney Jr (Huntsman).

  • ||

    Santorum isn't going anywhere until the pics of him having sex with that miscarried fetus of his finally surface.

  • pmains||

    I have to admit, I don't know much about Huntsman. That said, he sounds much better than Romney. He refused to engage in China-bashing during the last debate while Romney was all gung-ho. Huntsman put health care reforms in place in Utah, but claims to have brought the cost down. Romneycare, of course, is driving prices through the roof. Huntsman cut taxes in an already low-tax state. He is reasonable on immigration. I'd like to know how he feels about monetary policy, but I like everything I've seen so far. With Romney, I haven't been impressed by anything he has said.

  • Brandon||

    The problem with Huntsman is he's more likely to favor alcohol prohibition than drug legalization.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Brandon,

    The problem with Huntsman is he's more likely to favor alcohol prohibition than drug legalization.


    The problem with Hunstman is that he will not share the wealth, i.e. his daughters.

  • Metazoan||

    That, and he apparently once said he wants to subsidize natural gas (?!?!?!). But I do see where you're going; some degree of foreign policy realism is welcome in this current foreign-policy fantasyland.

  • Hate Potion Number Nine||

    Ask him to change what he said. I think he'll be happy to oblige you.

  • Old Mexican||

    The next is for Herman Cain: Mr. Cain, in the last debate, Congressman Paul asked you why did you call those that oppose the Fed "ignorant," your reply to him being that you did not say anything of the kind and that you gave too much credence to things posted on the internet that you did not say; yet just a few hours later, people posted on the internet a video of a conversation you were having on the radio where you explained that the opposition to the Fed was due to "people not understanding what the Fed does." Isn't this the same as saying the opposition is "ignorant"?

  • iamtheeviltwin||

    No OM, there is a difference. Calling someone ignorant is usually leveled as an insult or to dismiss someone. Saying that an individual "does not understand" may convey much the same meaning, but is not delivered in a dismissive or insulting manner.

    Words do matter and the intent behind them matters as well. It was part of the reason why Perry's "heartless" comment sparked such outrage. Not because of the message, but because of the delivery.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    The more the better so long as Ron Paul is in them. The more your rank-n-file Republican is exposed to libertarian ideas, the better.

  • romulus augustus||

    True, but unless Paul starts showing gains in his support levels, this will be all over long before New Hampshire.
    I wonder how long the money bombers will keep sending checks if Paul gains no traction soon?

  • ||

    In '08, it ended after Iowa.

  • CE||

    In 2008, Ron Paul won 10% of the vote in Iowa and 8% in New Hampshire. He stayed in the race almost to the end, cracking double digits in 15 states and 20% in a few. He is polling about 3 times higher this time around.

    The next money bomb is this Wednesday, 10/19 -- go to Ron Paul 2012 dot com and see how much support he has.

  • Not Fee Waybill||

    Isn't Ron third or at least fourth in nearly all polls and is third in fundraising too? That's not bad for someone whose primary function is to fly the libertarian flag in the primary. In fact, it is better than most of those in it solely to win. Let's not be so quick to dismiss him. He is working hard to win (just in case) as he promised, unlike last time. I'll keep sending checks until I max out or he quits. Ron deserves it.

  • ||

    Exposure just seems to build up the immunity rather than break it down unfortunately.

  • guy in the back row||

    Paul's poll numbers rose after the two debates where he had a decent amount of screen time. For the past two debates the focus has been on Romney, Perry, and Cain, with Paul getting very few opportunities to speak. His polls have gone down in that time.

    I think someone decided they have heard enough from the good Doctor.

  • Old Mexican||

    Do you think Gary Johnson, a Republican presidential candidate who served two terms as governor of New Mexico, should be included or excluded from future debates?


    Ira, really: who cares?

  • Uncle Joe||

    "Ira, really: who cares?"

    Those that don't like RP's lack of "purity" on immigration, and therefor prefer someone with...ehm...lack of purity on issues like the FED, Guantanamo Bay, military tribunals, hard drugs, the U.S. army as a "force for good in the world" etc etc.

  • Not Fee Waybill||

    I care! Gary is a great libertarian candidate. His support has been eclipsed by Ron but Gary is young and not done yet. He shouldn't quit, just in case something happens to Ron or Ron drops out. If that happened, Gary's support would leap ahead of the Santorums, Huntsmans, Gingrichs if they are still in the race. More importantly, gary should be building his Rolodex for his next endeavor.

  • ||

    "Dr. Paul... given the caliber of men and woman assembled on the stage with you, do you still oppose selective abortion?"

  • ||

    good answer

    "Yes, but it is an indictment of the federal control of our education system"

  • ||

    "And as a follow up question... Even Newt Gingrich? I mean, c'mon, fucking look at him!"

  • ||

    "Newt's human?"

  • ||

    Newt? Who is Newt?

  • ||

    Until your campaign is finally successful, it is better to call him by his more familiar name in a public forum. I do support that the graphic under his name be correct.

  • ||

    Well, Newt is still allowed, it's just short for Newcular Titties now, not Newton. I was just making a point.

    Frankly, I'd be partially satisfied if Hit & Run would at least call him by his proper name, at least in the alt-text.

  • Mensan||

    ProL, do you ever read the comments on any of our local news websites (e.g TBO, tampabay.com)? If you do, you may notice that he has been referred to by his proper name on there on several occasions.

  • ||

    Really? I'm so proud. The Times might officially adopt that name, its politics being what they are.

  • Binky||

    Why not just treat everyone the same rather than dividing people by income?

    Why not just get serious about dividing people by income and disenfranchise people who pay no income tax?

  • There is no "we"||

    because then everybody would glady give up their vote in exchange for paying no taxes.

  • .||

    You bet they would. Most people have enough sense to know their votes aren't really worth much individually.

  • anon||

    "What would that do to a real estate and construction industry in this country that is already hurting?"

    Absolutely fucking nothing. Exactly what the federal government SHOULD be doing.

  • ||

    Your 9-9-9 plan, as I understand it, would get rid of the home mortgage interest tax deduction and also impose a 9 percent national sales tax on sales of new homes. What would that do to a real estate and construction industry in this country that is already hurting?

    My plan would set off a boom in home construction and real estate, along with the boom in the rest of the economy, because, as you failed to note in your question, we are abolishing the payroll tax and the much of the current tax code.

    My plan knocks the top rate all the way down to 9%. Who is going to miss a deduction on their 35% tax rate, when they get a 9% rate?

  • Metazoan||

    The many people who end up paying less than 9% will miss it. I'm not saying that's right, but there are people (don't know how many, but if the "half the country doesn't pay taxes" thing is correct, I'd guess a lot) who pay less than 9% because of the deductions.

  • Trig||

    Uh yeah when they say that half the country doesn't pay taxes what they mean is, half the country get's PAID to file taxes. Going from receiving a few grand to paying a few grand on a poverty level income is quite the jump.

  • ||

    And yet, I am all for it. People just don't value things they get for free.

  • sasob||

    My plan knocks the top rate all the way down to 9%. Who is going to miss a deduction on their 35% tax rate, when they get a 9% rate?

    It depends. Nine per cent of what - net or gross income? Would there still be a standard deduction? What about exemptions for dependents?
    And the business part: Most businesses are sole proprietorships. Nine percent of their gross receipts? Or nine percent of their net profits?

    Nine percent this and nine percent that sounds wonderful and simple until one asks what that rate is to be applied to.

  • Cro-Magnon ||

    The 9,9,9 plan is flawed because it creates a national sales tax, which will be raised along with the other taxes once another liberal is elected.

  • Old Mexican||

    Why do you think you lost in 2006, and if you were nominated, how would you get the Pennsylvanians who voted against you as their senator in 2006 to support you as their president in the 2012 election?


    "I lost because people were not persuaded enough to the cause. This time, however, I will make sure people are persuaded to vote for me, by unleashing the forces of persuation that I now enjoy."

    Wait - that was Suharto's answer. Lemeseeeee - Santorum.... Santorum.... Santorum.... Starts with an 'S'... Hmmm....

  • Metazoan||

    "What about your 'google problem'?"

  • Copernicus||

    Suharto.. Nice pull

  • Copernicus||

    "Start with an S.....

    Swenson, swanson, swami, slappy, .....

    oh here it is: "Samsonite"... I was way off!"

  • There is no "we"||

    These questions are even more sorry-assed than the ones that actually get asked on TV.

    How about: does the militia clause of the second amendment provide the people with the right to bear the types of arms they need to form an actual militia?

    The United States already has two million people in prison today and counting. How many more - to the nearest 100,000 - are you willing to imprison in order to fight a war on abortion to go along with our war on drugs, war on crime, war on sex offenders, war on drunk driving, war on illegal immigration, and war on terrorism, and what specific tax increases and/or spending cuts are you willing to impose to fund the added imprisonment?

    You note that the United States has a higher corporate tax rate than competitors in Western Europe. What specific Western European revenue policies are you willing to adopt into the American tax system?

    The United States Social Security System allows the public sector labor unions for certain favored government employees, like teachers and police officers, to collectively opt out so that they can demand from taxpayers their own expensive, inflated, and now chronically under-funded pension systems. Are you willing to end this practice?

  • Mensan||

    Yes.
    None.
    None.
    Yes.

    Mensan 2016!

  • ||

    I know this may sound bizarre, in as much as many are happy to accept the role of the media as self appointed gate keepers with respect to what voters are allowed to hear, but how about this: ask all the candidates the same questions and allow all of the candidates to answer the same questions. See, I don't really care about the media mistreating and marginalizing certain candidates for the candidates sakes. What I care about is the media denying voters the right to hear all of the candidates and to make up their own minds about who is electable. And, yes, Gary Johnson should be there. Now, those of you who don't recognize this as a deliberate effort by the governing class to maintain the status quo - a status quo where they are entitled to skim off the cream - are either obtuse or willfully ignorant.

  • CE||

    They did that at one of the debates in 2007, I recall. The main candidates skipped it.

  • Copernicus||

    Even better. Having a debate skipped by Romney would be wonderful.

  • Jumbie||

    "Yes or no question: Did you support the George W. Bush bailouts?"

  • ||

    Great question. We know Obama did. I would also ask, "Should Hank Paulson be hung or shot?"

  • CE||

    Another question for Herman Cain:

    You maintain that your 9-9-9 plan will be revenue neutral, while Ron Paul's Restore America plan cuts one trillion in federal spending in his first year in office. Which is more important for the new president to focus on -- fiddling with the tax code or cutting spending?

  • CE||

    How about, if you're going to exclude Gary Johnson for low poll numbers and weak fundraising, why are Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman still here?

  • A Serious Man||

    I propose a Mortal Kombat-style tournament to weed out the weaker candidates.

  • Mensan||

    Scorpion/Saibot 2012!

  • ||

    Newt gives good quote. The press is hoping Santorum will talk about "man on dog" and every third male in the press is named "Jon" with no "h".

  • ||

    Those were all good questions. I have one threshold question: Have you released any fake birth certificates?

  • Copernicus||

    Top Question:

    "By how much and in what specific ways do you intend to diminish the power of the executive branch?"

  • ||

    That Romney question is an odd hypothetical question and weak overall.

  • Copernicus||

    To Romney: When did you stop beating your third wife?

  • Not Fee Waybill||

    I can't wait. This debate is going to be AWESOME!

  • ||

    The 9% tax would only apply to new home sales. Which would mean you could buy a pre-existing home from someone trying to sell it and pay NO taxes on the sale.
    Since a lot of construction workers are self-employed contractors, this would help them tremendously, instead of having to come up with 30 - 35% taxes at the end of the year, they would only have to come up with 9%.

    With an increase in sales of existing homes, construction would increase, as people invested in upgrading those homes, making more work for construction workers and increasing the value of their investment.

    As long as you still have a massive back inventory of existing homes, new home construction will continue to wane until that inventory is exhausted. Not having to pay taxes of any kind on the sale of those homes is a good start.

  • ||

    Yesterday the leaders of Massachusetts health described to their legislative leaders the rapid decline in new cases of HIV that could be attributed to RomneyCare. In fact, the number of really new cases has dropped from 1200 per year in 2001 to less than 300 in 2009, largely because (a) insurers can't drop clients because of a positive test; (b) 97% of the state has insurance; and (c) with insurance almost all who test positive get anti-viral treatment, and don't wait for symptoms. That has three very specific, RomneyCare specific, impacts: high rates of testing, lower rates of infection, and easier access to prevention.

    That has ended the pandemic. New cases occur, but the projections are fewer than 100 per year in a state of 5.6million people. It could, and should, be said that Romney cured AIDS.

    What comment would he want to share in this debate on his impact? And how would his opponents assess this effect?

  • ||

    Yesterday the leaders of Massachusetts health system described to their legislative leaders the rapid decline in new cases of HIV that could be attributed to RomneyCare. In fact, the number of really new cases has dropped from 1200 per year in 2001 to less than 300 in 2009, largely because (a) insurers can't drop clients because of a positive test; (b) 97% of the state has insurance; and (c) with insurance almost all who test positive get anti-viral treatment, and don't wait for symptoms. That has three very specific, RomneyCare specific, impacts: high rates of testing, lower rates of infection, and easier access to prevention.

    That has ended the pandemic and saved over $2billion a year in current and future liabilities in a relatively small state. New cases occur, but the projections are fewer than 100 per year in a state of 5.6million people. It could, and should, be said that Romney cured AIDS.

    What comment would he want to share in this debate on his impact? And how would his opponents assess this effect?

  • Guest||

    One question I'd like to hear asked: Do you believe in the concept that can be tested with the scientific method - the concept obviously preceded the DOI which was deeply based in that concept - do you believe a Creator allows freewill.

    Can this simple concept be applied throughput history to tyrants?

    Would the Founding Fathers understand the history of the world by applying a Concept that ateist, deist and various sects of Christians could all agree on.

    Mittens if you are such a patriot why did you mandate your citizens have to buy insurance? Wouldn't that be like sacrificing the individual and doing what you think is best fro society? ISn't that exactly what the self-avowed Hillary Clinton believes? Isn't that what Karl Marx thought? Is that really what the Framers believed when they wrote the documents centered on the concept that we are all individuals with freewill?

  • Ayn Rand||

    I was not a tyrant! I had no power to wield over anybody! Those are just unfounded rumors! I hate you guest! I was supposed to put the stake through the heart of leftist progressive ideology. You are just a lowly Construction worker! How you could you understand this logical reasoned scientifically tested Concept that is self evident once you follow the logic with your reasoning skills.

  • Boy toy||

    Oh the irony!

  • Founding Fathers||

    Guest if we could only get that message out and turn on the lights in our youth. We could stop rolling in our graves at what progressives are doing to the great country we gave you if you can keep it.

  • Herman Cain||

    I have the path to get us back to the top of the hill and solutions to provide the energy to power all those lights that'll be turned on. I need an undeniable mandate though and shiny things prevent people from seeing the forest because of the trees.

  • Guest||

    Where can I get n touch with the Kochtopus? I know the Koch brothers understand the concept because actions speak louder than words. I need help getting the message out and Jacket didn't repspond to an email I sent him.

  • Logic & Reason||

    Guest, once the libertarians, Randians and Paulies get over themselves they will realize they've been PWNED and climb aboard the Cain Train because logic and reason will lead them to vision through the logical concept that decisions have consequences. And they couldn't be more clearly contrasted by Cain and Obama.

  • Democrazy||

    You get the government you deserve, pick a path choose wisely.

  • Creator||

    There will be no hope for change in a world where people don't understand that the Concept that I allow freewill - because to deny that self evident scientifically provable concept is to deny freewill itself. Without freewill freedom cannot exist.

  • Thomas Jefferson||

    I agree Creator, even though I don't believe you exist I understand the Concept must be adhered to for a free people to remain free. We gave the people a government formed around that concept. When the concept is denied they will not be able to keep the freedom we gave them as Ben Frankin famously noted.

  • Religion||

    We abused that self evident concept throughout history.

  • Tyrants||

    Fools! Do not listen to this Guest, and ignore the fact that the tyrants who denied a Creator and the concept slaughtered more innocents human beings than those who believed in a creator but denied the concept.

    "My object in life is to dethrone [Creator] and destroy capitalism." -Karl Marx

  • FreeWill||

    To deny the self evident CONCEPT that a Creator allows freewill is to defy common sense, logic, freewill and history itself.

  • Climate Scientist||

    It is by random chance the Founding Fathers came up with a Concept which explains the history of tyranny and setup a country deeply based in that self evident concept.

    We must sacrifice the AGW skeptics and do what's best for society and since a Creator doesn't exist neither does freewill of skeptics. We are not playing Creator like every other marxist dictator by denying freewill. It's all just purely random chance and coincidental. You are a moron Guest don't you understand science is a democracy.

  • Ben Franklin||

    Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

  • George Washington||

    Ben, I don't think they understand that when the many understand and believe in the CONCEPT that many can form one country where freedom reigns and live as one nation under Creator{concept} where no man can take away freewill the self evident concept provides.

  • Einstein||

    Yes, George. Science would do well to unify around the concept so skeptics voices could be heard.

    Science without the [CONCEPT] is blind and religion without the [scientifically tested CONCEPT] is lame.

  • Bees||

    Stop PWNING these people with your handles and this CONCEPT you keep talking about - because you're crushing them under the pressure of their own logic and reasoning skills as they try to defy your self evident truths.

  • Question||

    Guest, are you saying that if science, politics and religion all United around a concept that Our Creator allows freewill that there would be no tyrants within those fields.

    Do you mean we could actually have separation of politics and science and state etc....

  • Guest||

    YES! That's it! That's it! Bingo! You hit the nail on the head! That's the concept which is self evident, scientifically proven with a simple GodDammit and the idea that preceded the DOI which atheist, deist and various sects could Unite around to create a document stating as much and form a United nation around.

  • Guest||

    Whether you believe in a Creator or not to deny the CONCEPT Our Creator allows freewill is to deny freewill itself as evidenced by history and the realworld today. Its self evident as to those who deny the Concept because actions speak LOUDER than words.

    Creator Bless America!

    **cue music**

    I am America....

  • Uncle Sam||

    Get this man a microphone!

  • Liberty||

    I concur!

  • Capitalism||

    Me too!

  • Teleprompter||

    People like Guest will put me out of business.

  • Herman Cain||

    I speak without a teleprompter.

  • Ocean||

    This man is deep, believe me! If it takes one to know one that is.

  • Guest||

    You have to swim though the shallow on the way to deep but be careful the pressure of logic and reason don't crush you while you are swimming in the depths of the freewill Creator Concept.

  • Intellectual||

    You speak in parables construction worker named Guest. Do you have a Messiah complex?

  • Guest||

    NO! Not at all. I am just a simpleton that understands a rocket scientist is basically telling us "this shit is NOT rocket science people" and I applied that theme to the CONCEPT our country was Founded upon.

  • Sperm||

    You are a unique individual Guest.

  • Guest||

    Yes I am Sperm, I was the best swimmer in the race. I won the prize which is the ability to pursue of life, liberty and happiness.

  • Democratic Republic||

    You gave me away with the 17th and court abuse of the Commerce Clause.

  • Vlad Lenin||

    Democracy is indispensable to socialism.

  • Marc St. Stephen||

    How about these three questions to test the mettle of their "limited government" claim:

    Currently a small but significant portion of the HHS budget goes to anti-smoking studies and research, including multi-million dollar block grants to anti-smoking groups to push smoking bans through county and city governments nationwide. Would you end this funding?

    In 2009, Congress and president Obama granted a unique power to the FDA. Unlike its mission on all other food and drug items, which is to ensure safety and efficacy claims are correct; the unique power granted to the FDA over tobacco is to hinder availability and eliminate consumer demand. Would you work with congress to either eliminate the FDA's authority over tobacco or at least eliminate its goal of eradicating tobacco availability and demand?

    In 2008, despite President Obama's promise not to raise any tax on those making under $250,000, Congress and Obama increased federal cigarette exice taxes 61 cents, or 246% - a tax that has primarily affected the working poor - to overfund SCHIP with an unsustainable tax source. Would you work with congress to restore SCHIP funding to a reasonable level from a more sustainable source and eliminate this excessive tax hike - a tax hike that epitomizes nanny state prohibition by expense?

    Is it too much to fucking ask that questions like these be posed during debates or do we have to find out about this brand of nanny-state tendency only after the bums are in office?

  • ||

    I want the big media conglomerates deciding for me who the next President will be. After all, they and other corporate interests own the country, they should decide who runs it. It's only fair.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement