• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

the makeout hobo said:
Do you two think there should be any restrictions on money spent in politics?
Click to expand...

I think that we need laws that keep political figures and big business executives away from each other.

I think any donation of funds to a politician from a big business should be punishable by 10 years in prison FOR BOTH PARTIES.
 
RightinNYC said:
Yes it is.

Buckley v. Valeo



I know I'm wasting my time, but think about a reason why statistics about donations under the current law (which drastically restrict how and how much people can donate) might not be the best evidence to support a claim about what would happen in a scenario where people were free to give as much as they like.
Click to expand...

I think businesses should be banned from giving money to politicians. It breeds corruption and injustice.

Corporate rule needs to be punished severely. Both the giver of the bribe (or donation... as republicans like to call it) and the receiver need to be doing hard time in Florence, Colorado.

Business and politics DO NOT MIX.
 
the makeout hobo said:
How is regulating money spent in politics infringing freedom of speech? Money is not speech.
Click to expand...

Well, I've always thought about it this way:

If I want to buy a bullhorn and stand on the street corner advocating for an issue, surely that would be freedom of speech. No one would say that my investment in the $10 bullhorn violated campaign finance laws, right?

Now...what if instead of doing that, I paid someone else to stand on the street corner with the bullhorn and advocate my message? Would that be a violation of campaign finance laws? I think most people would say that that still falls under freedom of speech.

Now...what if instead of doing that, I paid someone else to stand in front of a TV camera with a microphone and advocate my message to 100,000 people? Is there really any difference between that and the bullhorn example, other than the scale?
 
Last edited:
Crunch said:
I do... 1 million dollars per candidate.... period... no exceptions... no wiggle room...
Click to expand...

A good deal of campaign financing comes from 527 groups that aren't affiliated with the candidates at all.

Crunch said:
no more buying elections.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's much evidence that money influences the election results at all, as long as you have enough of it where the voters know your name. Sure, the guy with the most money typically wins, but this is a chicken-or-egg question. Did the money buy the votes...or did the candidate's inherent popularity cause more people to give him more money?
 
LowRevs said:
You don't really want to talk about the criminal organization ACORN which Obama paid $800K or so do you? Of course McCain/Feingold didn't stop this fraud paid for by all those untraceable donations.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about ACORN, I'm talking about organizers that worked directly for Obama.

Crunch said:
I do... 1 million dollars per candidate.... period... no exceptions... no wiggle room... no more buying elections.
Click to expand...

That is nothing for a national campaign.
 
Kandahar said:
Well, I've always thought about it this way:

If I want to buy a bullhorn and stand on the street corner advocating for an issue, surely that would be freedom of speech. No one would say that my investment in the $10 bullhorn violated campaign finance laws, right?

Now...what if instead of doing that, I paid someone else to stand on the street corner with the bullhorn and advocate my message? Would that be a violation of campaign finance laws? I think most people would say that that still falls under freedom of speech.

Now...what if instead of doing that, I paid someone else to stand in front of a TV camera with a microphone and advocate my message to 100,000 people? Is there really any difference between that and the bullhorn example, other than the scale?
Click to expand...

I think you reach the point where the money becomes too much though, and politicians are too worried about getting money to get reelected than legitimately doing their jobs.
 
the makeout hobo said:
I completely agree, which is why I think loopholes like those you mentioned need to be closed.
Click to expand...

The way it's set up it can't close those "loopholes". As you allude to, there is an actual problem. But the law did nothing to address the actual problem, but rather worked against the people in a regressive manner....as is most everything they do. To do what you want, this law needs to be scrapped and a proper law needs to be drafted and submitted. But good luck on that part, politicians on both sides of the isle know where their real paycheck comes from.
 
the makeout hobo said:
I think you reach the point where the money becomes too much though, and politicians are too worried about getting money to get reelected than legitimately doing their jobs.
Click to expand...

Ya but how can you really tell the difference between free speech and a campaign ad? If I go on television to give my opinion on universal health care, that's freedom of speech, right? What if I do it just before an election? And what if I suggest that people vote for candidates who support universal health care, without actually naming any candidates?

If politicians are too worried about getting money to get reelected, I think there is a better solution: Impose term limits on senators and congressmen.
 
Last edited:
What needs to happen is the only contributions made to any candidate must come from individual donations only. No corporate donations whatsoever. Those power pools of money should never be allowed to influence our senators and representatives. Even if you don't believe that it affects campaign outcomes, it sure does affect later legislative decisions. Only individual citizens should be able to donate money to campaigns and nothing else. I say "nothing" because corporations should not be seen or understood to be people. And, yes, I would say the same of any large group like unions, sports teams, you name it.
 
Kandahar said:
Ya but how can you really tell the difference between free speech and a campaign ad? If I go on television to give my opinion on universal health care, that's freedom of speech, right? What if I do it just before an election? And what if I suggest that people vote for candidates who support universal health care, without actually naming any candidates?

If politicians are too worried about getting money to get reelected, I think there is a better solution: Impose term limits on senators and congressmen.
Click to expand...

Term limits are a massive failure. Look at Cali to see that. It just leads to people job hopping, and they're more worried about their next job than doing their job. Also, what's the difference between a candidate needing to raise a massive amount of money for his 2nd term or his 5th term? Term limits are not the answer.
 
How about this, you can raise as much as you want from whoever....just every single dollar has to be posted on a public website detailing when it was donated and by whom. If there's one thing partisan hacks are good for, it's using their time to find any piece of dirt on candidates they don't like. Who better to scrutinize such lists? And these lists should get audited. Any discrepancies and you start getting fined the differences.
 
the makeout hobo said:
Term limits are a massive failure. Look at Cali to see that. It just leads to people job hopping, and they're more worried about their next job than doing their job.
Click to expand...

Ya but at the federal level there really aren't that many elected jobs to hop between. Once you've been a representative and a senator, there isn't much else (unless one has presidential aspirations).

the makeout hobo said:
Also, what's the difference between a candidate needing to raise a massive amount of money for his 2nd term or his 5th term?
Click to expand...

Nothing, except he's only doing it once instead of four times.
 
formerroadie said:
What needs to happen is the only contributions made to any candidate must come from individual donations only. No corporate donations whatsoever. Those power pools of money should never be allowed to influence our senators and representatives. Even if you don't believe that it affects campaign outcomes, it sure does affect later legislative decisions. Only individual citizens should be able to donate money to campaigns and nothing else. I say "nothing" because corporations should not be seen or understood to be people. And, yes, I would say the same of any large group like unions, sports teams, you name it.
Click to expand...

You just described our current system.

You think the current system actually works?
 
obvious Child said:
How about this, you can raise as much as you want from whoever....just every single dollar has to be posted on a public website detailing when it was donated and by whom. If there's one thing partisan hacks are good for, it's using their time to find any piece of dirt on candidates they don't like. Who better to scrutinize such lists? And these lists should get audited. Any discrepancies and you start getting fined the differences.
Click to expand...

IMO, this is by far the best approach.
 
RightinNYC said:
IMO, this is by far the best approach.
Click to expand...

What would be even better addition would be scan each donation form (or post digitized transaction logs) that link to each donation. Because I know for a fact that certain groups are going to try to essentially launder money through more legitimate sources.

Sunlight Disinfectant ⓒ anyone?
 
Kandahar said:
Ya but at the federal level there really aren't that many elected jobs to hop between. Once you've been a representative and a senator, there isn't much else (unless one has presidential aspirations).
Click to expand...
Granted, I was talking more about the state level, but the problem is that no matter what term, he has to raise so much money that he's no longer a completely free agent.

Nothing, except he's only doing it once instead of four times.
Click to expand...

If he has to sell his soul to get elected once or four times, whats the difference?
 
the makeout hobo said:
I'm not talking about ACORN, I'm talking about organizers that worked directly for Obama.
Click to expand...

Sorry I don't see the distinction. Obama trained ACORN, at least I've hear it said dozens of times. He is a community organizer isn't he? This ACORN stuff is going to flow uphill right into the oval office. Can you bring a RICO complaint against a sitting President?
 
LowRevs said:
Sorry I don't see the distinction. Obama trained ACORN, at least I've hear it said dozens of times. He is a community organizer isn't he? This ACORN stuff is going to flow uphill right into the oval office. Can you bring a RICO complaint against a sitting President?
Click to expand...

You have no idea what I'm even referring to, do you? I'm not even talking about ACORN whatsoever. There's dozens of threads about that if you want to troll those. I'm talking about people trained by the Obama campaign to manage field offices in major cities. I personally worked a fair bit in the Sacramento one, and we had nothing to do with ACORN. To train those people and to run those field offices took money, is my point.
 
LowRevs said:
Sorry I don't see the distinction. Obama trained ACORN, at least I've hear it said dozens of times. He is a community organizer isn't he? This ACORN stuff is going to flow uphill right into the oval office. Can you bring a RICO complaint against a sitting President?
Click to expand...

Interesting factiod....

By JOHN FUND
Only one of the five television networks that interviewed President Obama for their Sunday shows bothered to ask him about Acorn, the left-wing community organizing group whose federal funding was cut off last week by an overwhelming vote in Congress.

"Frankly, it's not something I've followed closely," Mr. Obama claimed, adding he wasn't even aware the group had been the recipient of significant federal funding. "This is not the biggest issue facing the country. It's not something I'm paying a lot of attention to," he said.

Mr. Obama added that an investigation of Acorn was appropriate after an amateur hidden-camera investigation had found Acorn offices willing to abet prostitution, but he carefully declined to say whether he would approve a federal cutoff of funds to the group.

Mr. Obama took great pains to act as if he barely knew about Acorn. In fact, his association goes back almost 20 years. In 1991, he took time off from his law firm to run a voter-registration drive for Project Vote, an Acorn partner that was soon fully absorbed under the Acorn umbrella. The drive registered 135,000 voters and was considered a major factor in the upset victory of Democrat Carol Moseley Braun over incumbent Democratic Senator Alan Dixon in the 1992 Democratic Senate primary.

Mr. Obama's success made him a hot commodity on the community organizing circuit. He became a top trainer at Acorn's Chicago conferences. In 1995, he became Acorn's attorney, participating in a landmark case to force the state of Illinois to implement the federal Motor Voter Law. That law's loose voter registration requirements would later be exploited by Acorn employees in an effort to flood voter rolls with fake names.
Click to expand...

Acorn Who? - WSJ.com

This doesn't surprise me one bit... if this guys lips are moving you can bet he's lying.
 
RightinNYC said:
Reality: There's absolutely no evidence to support the claim that this would benefit Republicans more than Democrats. The suit itself was brought by Emily's List, a liberal non-profit group.
Click to expand...

:applaud Bravo; I am constantly amused with the argument that Republicans must benefit from lobbying more than/or receive more money than Democrats.
 
formerroadie said:
What needs to happen is the only contributions made to any candidate must come from individual donations only. No corporate donations whatsoever. Those power pools of money should never be allowed to influence our senators and representatives. Even if you don't believe that it affects campaign outcomes, it sure does affect later legislative decisions. Only individual citizens should be able to donate money to campaigns and nothing else. I say "nothing" because corporations should not be seen or understood to be people. And, yes, I would say the same of any large group like unions, sports teams, you name it.
Click to expand...

I believe that current laws do not permit corporations to donate ANY money for elections.

I think that a proper application of this law should include Unions. It seems odd to me that companies cannot contribute, but that Unions, which are essentially corporate entities, can.
 
Truth Detector said:
I believe that current laws do not permit corporations to donate ANY money for elections.

I think that a proper application of this law should include Unions. It seems odd to me that companies cannot contribute, but that Unions, which are essentially corporate entities, can.
Click to expand...

I agree. Unions do not need to be funding politics.
 
Truth Detector said:
I believe that current laws do not permit corporations to donate ANY money for elections.

I think that a proper application of this law should include Unions. It seems odd to me that companies cannot contribute, but that Unions, which are essentially corporate entities, can.
Click to expand...

It's my understanding that they're both bound by the same laws regarding campaign finance. Neither can directly contribute money (I think), but unions are more adept than corporations at helping candidates through other measures such as fundraising and direct advertising.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom