View Poll Results: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

Voters
176. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    66 37.50%
  • No

    110 62.50%
Page 26 of 45 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 443

Thread: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

  1. #251
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    I'm in favor of ending all campaign donations and only providing a small equal amount from public funds.
    You want the government to have complete control of election funding?
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  2. #252
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,596
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Are the poll results saying that the majority here support the buying of elections ?
    And that there is no need for election reform ??

  3. #253
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,596
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    You want the government to have complete control of election funding?
    YES
    I trust our government far more than special interest groups.
    For this to be successful, we do need far more involvement in our government...things such as 100% of the people not only voting, but knowing who they are voting for...
    Did I mention comprehensive reform ?
    Our electorate needs to be far better informed than they are today ....witness the conservative debates,,,seven fools appealing to 70 million fools...or more
    Last edited by earthworm; 11-23-11 at 10:04 AM.

  4. #254
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 06:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,945
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    I'm in favor of ending all campaign donations and only providing a small equal amount from public funds.
    I am not so hot on the public funds thingy. I am not that familiar with t either. But on its face, it sounds like a bad idea. I am open to changing my mind.

    I would be comfortable with funding solely from the donations of individuals.
    I may be wrong.

  5. #255
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    Are the poll results saying that the majority here support the buying of elections ?
    And that there is no need for election reform ??
    No. It's saying that this particular proposal isn't a good way to reform elections - especially since the entire premise of the poll is inaccurate because union and corporate money is already banned.
    Last edited by misterman; 11-23-11 at 10:44 AM.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  6. #256
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    YES
    I trust our government far more than special interest groups.
    Yes, you do - because they don't control election funding yet. You don't see how the government controlling who gets money to run against it is a bad idea?

    For this to be successful, we do need far more involvement in our government...things such as 100% of the people not only voting, but knowing who they are voting for...
    Did I mention comprehensive reform ?
    Our electorate needs to be far better informed than they are today ....witness the conservative debates,,,seven fools appealing to 70 million fools...or more
    How arrogant, to simply declare the other side to be stupid fools who need your help in controlling what they hear. Especially since they are busy saying the exact same thing about you. Did it occur to you that they could get control of the government, and therefore funding of elections, and use that against you?
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  7. #257
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    I am not so hot on the public funds thingy. I am not that familiar with t either. But on its face, it sounds like a bad idea. I am open to changing my mind.
    I support public support for elections, but not in conjunction with limits on any other funding. It would help balance things out. I don't think we need funding, just free TV and radio air time, as a condition of holding a broadcast license, since the public owns the airwaves and they are supposed to serve the public.

    You may be interested to know that the presidential elections are already publicly funded. Candidates have to agree to limit their spending in exchange for it. They can accept private donations too, in fact, the public money matched their private donations.

    I would be comfortable with funding solely from the donations of individuals.
    There are only three sources of funding now, and all come ultimately from individuals.

    1. Individuals.
    2. PACs, which collect voluntary donations from individuals (or other PACs). These are often sponsored by corporations, unions, or other groups.
    3. Parties, which also collect money from voluntary donations from individuals (or PACs).

    So ultimately, all the money comes from individuals. No corporate or union money allowed.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  8. #258
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    Are the poll results saying that the majority here support the buying of elections ?
    And that there is no need for election reform ??
    Actually the poll says Americans do not support excluding peaceful assemblies of people being able to contribute more to elections.Of course this is assuming the poll is actually accurate seeing how the OP failed to make votes public.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  9. #259
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 06:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,945
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrilla View Post
    unions are not corporations.. legally speaking.
    they are unions.
    Check and see if unions are incorporated or not. I think you'll find that they actually are incorporated.
    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    They aren't treated "the same."
    But they do have some rights. Just like any group. You wouldn't say, for example, that a political party has no freedom of speech because it's not a person. Would you?
    At the moment artificial persons have more rights than is good for us as a nation. My case is that artificial person should be restricted from lobbying our govt because it produces perverse results that are harmful to the country as a whole--but beneficial to the lobbying groups and the legislators promoting them.
    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    Lobbying is not necessarily an evil...
    I think that all groups should be heard...equally.
    The current set up favors artificial persons over real persons. That's not good.
    Rational Ignorance
    Politicians exploit rational ignorance by conferring large benefits on certain constituents whose costs are widely dispersed and borne by the general population. Take the sugar industry. It pays the owners and workers to organize and tax themselves to raise money to lobby Congress for tariffs on foreign sugar. If they're successful, it means millions of dollars in higher profits and wages. Since they are relatively small in number the organization costs are small and the benefits are narrowly distributed.
    As a result of price supports and import restrictions, millions of American sugar consumers pay a few dollars more per year for the sugar we use. The U.S. General Accounting Office estimates that Americans pay between $1 and $2 billion a year in higher sugar prices. Forget about finding out and doing something about these costs. After all how many of us are willing to board a plane or train to Washington to try to unseat congressmen who made us pay $5 more for the sugar we bought last year? It's not worth it; it's cheaper just to pay the $5 and forget it. For workers and owners in the sugar industry it is worth it to descend on Washington to try to unseat congressmen who refuse to support restrictions on foreign sugar. It's worth $1 or $2 billion to them...
    You say, "What's the grief, Williams? Five dollars won't kill you." Washington is home to thousands of business and labor union lobbyists... According to some estimates, restrictions of one kind or another cost the average American family $5,000 to $6,000 a year in higher prices.

    What's worse is that the system is set such that Congress is playing the lobbyists for more money by screwing with our tax code to keep these businesses guessing and lobbying. The two groups--the legislators and the lobbyists--are screwing the country for their own benefit.
    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    No.Because unions and corporations are a peaceful assembly of people and as such have the same constitutional rights as any other groups and individuals.
    The rights of the individual members would remain unaffected.
    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    I would oppose this. To my mind amending the constitution should only be done for really big things. This is not a really big thing.
    This is actually a very big thing that affects our govt from top to bottom to some degree and threatens the viability of our representative form of govt by allowing for the subversion of the intended process through the bypassing of the electorate.
    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Wow. You're trying to talk yourself into believing that the voters don't actually walk into a voting booth and make a choice.
    A choice between two candidates who end up directly or indirectly beholden to some of the same monied interests. It's not uncommon for voters to feel that their choices have been limited to the lesser of two evils.
    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Why stop there? Why should they be beholden to rich individuals who can afford to give money?
    I think there should be a limit on how much individuals can contribute to a campaign for office. Artificial persons should be limited to lobbying the electorate on issues (as opposed to candidates.)
    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    In fact, what happens is that those of us without much money can pool it by giving it to a group and give it to a candidate so it helps them compete, and without having to go raise it from each one of us.
    In practice, the candidate becomes beholden to the bundler rather than the electorate who actually donated the money. This is one of the objections to the behavior of unions iirc.
    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    Well except that the public money would be guaranteed, whereas there are no guarantees that you'd be able to raise the same amount privately.
    And part of my political involvement includes donating to campaigns I support, but not donating to those I don't. I'm not interested at all in turning that over to the fed government instead.
    I am not a big fan of this idea either. It seems to make the candidates dependent on someone else other than the electorate--which is the problem in the first place.
    Quote Originally Posted by barbarian_style View Post
    I don't understand how corporations are allowed now to contribute moneys when they are globally bound in the present, which in essence creates foreign countries moneys to flow in through corporate donations from all over the world influencing the U.S. elections, I don't want china to sink cash into our political arena, think about it.
    Indeed. This is currently happening. Countries from all over the world hold more sway in DC than the average member of the electorate. Pick w/e your favorite boogey man country is, and sure enough, they have more influence on your congressman than you do.
    I may be wrong.

  10. #260
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    The rights of the individual members would remain unaffected.
    Their rights as a peaceful assembly of people would still be effected.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

Page 26 of 45 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •