@Typo-MAGAshiv

the majority of the electorate is in favor of it.

Elon Musk's polling data reads 53% negative, 35% positive. Trump's job approval rating reads 45%, and Vance 33%. By party lines, 75% of Trump supporters but less than 10% who disapprove of Trump consider Elon's judgement and experience adequate to the task of administering DOGE.

You do realize that the only position in the Executive Branch which is elected is the President, right?

You're leaving out the Trump administration's flouting and bypassing of the Legislative and Judicial branches of government. It's not whining to express concern that an unelected, unvetted, and unchecked individual got unlimited access to Government agencies. DOGE has made unilateral cuts to agencies that Congress already approved spending on, without input from Congress.

@redpillschool

The candidate is not allowed to coordinate with the PACs, legally.

One would need active willful ignorance to believe there exists no connection between donations to a candidate's campaign, and influence by the donor on their performance once in office. The legal formality of placing an entity like a PAC as a middle man, functionally does nothing to break the straight line influential connection between donor and candidate -> office holder. Particularly now that the game gets openly rigged at the $100MM level.

I asked you a question about free speech like 3 posts ago, you still haven't answered.

These ARE answers. In the post Citizens United world, corporations = people, and money = speech. Thus, the voices and speech of natural individual persons gets completely sidestepped and drowned out by the incursion of limitless corporate money into politics and the electoral system.

I also told you above where I'd draw the line, to try to correct the current state of affairs. One entity, one agreed upon and legally enshrined maximum donation amount- whether the entity is a natural person or a corporation. For speech of average individuals to maintain any power and influence in a democratic system where we go through the motions of voting, the maximum donation amount needs to be within one order of magnitude of the reach of average individuals across the voting population. I'd rather not quibble here about whether that number falls specifically at $100 or $1000 or somewhere near this range. The point is, the entire system of the population having any voice in their government gets rendered completely moot when a small number of individuals can drop $100,000,000.00 into the political system.

I don't know why you're trying so hard to dodge this point. It takes some deeply internalized Slave Morality to defend it so vigorously as you (and many others elsewhere that I know) do like this.