I recently had occasion to consider a subject too often overlooked, which forms in no small part the foundation of all politics. It does so because it is at the heart of all human motivations.

One might say, without it, there is no such thing as motivation. It is the question of value.

While this is in some portion closely related to our talk from Episode 6, it ought not be mistaken for a purely economic phenomenon. Value is central to all human relationships, not the least of which are those we define as political. Value is often mistaken as money, or objects exchangeable for money. Services, as well. though too often too narrowly defined.

Elsewhere, I had a lengthy conversation with a very interesting gentleman who said we needed to get money out of our politics. This is a popular enough idea, and given the rampant criminality in our government, you can understand how one would be drawn to it.

His suggestion was that, based upon a certain degree of popular support, as evidenced by petition signatures, a person or party would gain access to public resources to spend on a political campaign. It necessarily follows from this that, no other political spending is permissible, and in this way, goes the theory, we get money out of politics. And, goes the theory, in this way, we reduce corruption in government.

OK. Fine theory. Let us consider the practice.

It might go without saying that politicians are beholden to those who finance their campaigns. Owing to the obviousness of this, in the United States, there are very significant limitations on what one can donate to a candidate for federal office. Theory being, if you limit what any one person can spend on political campaigns, you can limit that individual's influence, and thereby make the society more democratic by spreading power more evenly among the populace.

According to the Federal Elections Commission, an individual may donate no more than $3,300 to any candidate for public office in a given election. He may also donate up to $5,000 per year to any SuperPAC, a combined total of $10,000 per year to any "state/district/local" Party committee, $41,300 to any national party, and "$123,900* per account, per year" to any "Additional national party committee accounts". That last one sounds like a bit of a loophole, but these are by no means uncommon and, as we'll discuss, ultimately unavoidable. Similar though not identical limits apply regarding transfers from committees to candidates.

Corporations, you might have heard, can spend unlimited funds on political campaigns. You might have heard this, because Democrats are liars and lots of people are ignorant. Corporations are prohibited under federal law from contributing money to politicians.

This popular myth stems from the Supreme Court case known as Citizens United, in which a private entity made a film critical of Hillary Clinton. They were sued for violating campaign finance law under the theory that one may not spend money to make political statements on their own volition. Rightly, the filmmakers prevailed, and ever since then we have been hearing about corporate campaign contributions as if they were a real thing. They are not.

There is also something known as the "in kind contribution". In this, if say, a landlord, provides rent free office space to a candidate's committee, this must be recorded as a campaign contribution, by calculating the value of the rent and recording it much the way they would had he written a check for that amount.

With all these limits, why is it popularly believed that billionaires and corporations are buying politicians?

Well, because they are, firstly. These limitations are fake, fundamentally, and not because the law isn't enforced. If Pfizer writes a check to Joe Biden, somebody is going to get in trouble. If I donate $3,400 to Donald Trump, I'm going to get a $100 refund quickly, whether I like it or not. But if Pfizer pays CNN millions of dollars for advertising, and CNN demonizes Biden's opponents while covering up Joe Biden's many crimes, then this is not considered a campaign contribution. It's just dishonest media, which Americans consider one of those "blessings of liberty" along with drag queen story hour. If Pfizer chooses not to advertise on Tucker Carlson because they dislike the political positions he espouses, no law requires them to spend advertising dollars where they do not se fit to.

Freedom of speech, be though it may, a questionable value, is valued by most Americans. The idea that money is somehow separable from this is based in large part on our misconceptions of value, though one might argue it is more an intentional deception by the powerful, seeking to avoid being criticized too loudly.

Say a man buys no advertisements, but covers his car in his favored candidate's bumper stickers and drives around the country singing the man's praises. Is his fuel expenditure a campaign contribution? Shall we prohibit him from doing this in order to get money out of politics?

To be clear, as many of you know, I am not an advocate of free speech. I believe men of good character ought be free to speak the truth as they see it, and to discover and correct their errors through debate. But I am perfectly fine with imprisoning communists and gender fanatics for spreading lies, and while I don't favor any barrier to being recognized as a news agency, I am all for locking up self styled reporters who poison the minds of the population for short sighted political gain. I'm not making an argument for free speech, only for recognizing that money and speech are inseparable because speech is valuable, and money exists to facilitate the storage and transmission of value.

Let us consider something more nuanced than political influence.

Some of you may know if you follow me on Telegram or Gab, that I attended Church yesterday for the first time in six years. I was very conflicted about this, because I do not share the beliefs of the congregants.

On this show, and elsewhere, it is not at all infrequent that I touch on subject matter that has relevance to religious people. When I do this, you might notice I uniformly make some mention of my own lack of faith, and this is by no means because I want to distance myself from religious people. Actually, this stems from my certainty that I stand to derive a great deal of value from such an association, and because I do not deserve the value, I do not want to obtain it by deceptive omission. I have an ethical concern that I do not want to take advantage of religious people by soliciting donations from them after they have been allowed to make faulty inferences from other things I have said.

But of course, value is more than donations. I've mentioned before that, people have called into my other show saying I should go to church to find a wife, and I thought this would be a very disreputable thing for me to do. What could be more valuable than that?

My attendance yesterday was not spontaneous. A local friend has invited me to go several times and I have declined each time stating a number of reasons, but most notably that I would obtain undeserved benefits. I was recently at a social gathering with this friend, and her other friends from the church were there and they extended a similar invitation. I expressed to them these concerns, and they assured me that I'd be committing no wrong by attending, so I accepted.

But I had some awareness that this was not so simple as it was being made out to be, and this was promptly confirmed after the conclusion of the services.

I'll tell you more during the show, which airs this and every Monday at 9:30pm US Eastern, on Rumble and Odysee.