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 4 of 45 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 443

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

  1. #31
    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 Ontologuy View Post
    In theory, it's not a bad idea, as donating persons really should be just living ones, with respect to the Constitution.

    In practice, the unions would gain an advantage, as there is a per-person donation maximum per recipient, and it might be an enforcement challenge to insure that unions didn't launder donations through individual members, which unions and ad hoc equivalents would have far more of than corporations could recruit.
    Corporations are still banned from giving donations to candidates. So are unions. So is "laundering." Though both can collect money voluntarily from members, stock holders etc. through PACs.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  2. #32
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,362

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

    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    I might could go for a compromise. Each candidate could choose if they want the public funds and all the strings that are always attached to accepting fed money. If they take it, then they cannot accept funds from private sources, but, if a candidate decides to reject the public money, then they're free to fundraise from private sources with no limits on how much they can raise (since it doesn't come from taxpayers). What do you think?
    No, because no politician in their right mind would choose a limited fund over an unlimited amount. The whole point to my idea is to eliminate private money from politics completely, so any form of private money makes screws the pooch with me.
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  3. #33
    Guru

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:16 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,469

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

    Good luck getting that amendment through the Congress and the States.

    .

  4. #34
    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 whysoserious View Post
    I would support any law that helps bring lobbying to an end. Lobbyists are useless individuals, and I hope one of them reads this statement and knows that's what I think of them.
    Lobbying is simply telling Congress what you think. Nothing to do with money. It is protected by the Constitution.

    You have a lobbyist working for you somewhere, and you've probably sent money to one without realizing it, by supporting a group you favor.

    I am disgusted by people who don't understand what lobbying is and are hypocrites who benefit from lobbying yet don't admit it. I hope I know what I think of them too.
    Last edited by misterman; 11-21-11 at 05:11 PM.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  5. #35
    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 Your Star View Post
    No, because no politician in their right mind would choose a limited fund over an unlimited amount. The whole point to my idea is to eliminate private money from politics completely, so any form of private money makes screws the pooch with me.
    You realize that X Factor just described the current system for presidential elections, right?
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  6. #36
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

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

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    BECAUSE THE VOTERS STILL CHOSE HIM!!!!!

    If the voters prefer the guy who blasts the most TV ads at them, that's their choice!
    Let's talk about a classroom election.

    Let's say that I went into a sixth grade classroom and said we were going to have an election for class president.

    I then said that in order to run, you needed to have $100.

    I went around and found two students that I personally liked and gave each of them $100. The rest of the class didn't have that much money, so I effectively decided who could and could not run before they even got to vote.

    Then the two students I gave the money to ran.

    The students in the class didn't like either option but they chose the person they disliked least to be their president.

    That is pretty much how elections work in our country. You can't run unless you have a certain amount of money. The options are filtered long before we get to election day.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  7. #37
    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 apdst View Post
    I would, as long as it applied to every kind of orginization: special interests, lobbying firms, non-profits, you name it. Also, i would support it if it made foreign donations illegal.
    There are only three legal sources of funds NOW:

    1. individuals

    2. PACs, which can accept donations only from individuals (don't get them confused with SuperPACs)

    3. political parties, which can only accept money from the other two

    So all donations eventually come from individuals. Donations from corporate or union treasuries are banned. Corporations and unions can sponsor PACs and ask their shareholders, members, etc. for voluntary donations, but they can't give money to them.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  8. #38
    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 CriticalThought View Post
    Let's talk about a classroom election.

    Let's say that I went into a sixth grade classroom and said we were going to have an election for class president.

    I then said that in order to run, you needed to have $100.

    I went around and found two students that I personally liked and gave each of them $100. The rest of the class didn't have that much money, so I effectively decided who could and could not run before they even got to vote.

    Then the two students I gave the money to ran.

    The students in the class didn't like either option but they chose the person they disliked least to be their president.

    That is pretty much how elections work in our country. You can't run unless you have a certain amount of money. The options are filtered long before we get to election day.
    Paying for votes in elections is illegal though. Completely false analogy. Nobody is going around giving voters cash to vote for them. No, it's not at all like elections work in this country.

    Here's how they REALLY work: someone spends money on ads. Voters choose that person to vote for most of the time. That's 100% the voter's choice.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  9. #39
    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 CriticalThought View Post
    The way I see it, our current two party system is ultimately what has lead to the financial crisis we face today. That system was largely cemented by the 1979 amendments to the Federal Elections Campaign Act and the subsequent exploitation of loopholes by special interest groups. As it is now, to be elected to office you need the financial support of major corporations or unions and so long before the voters ever get a chance to vote on candidates, the ones who would not support corporate and union interests have been filtered out. As such we can only choose between candidates who serve the interest of their financial backers and political party, not the interests of the country. Without an amendment to the Constitution to change this problem, we will continue the dog and pony show where we pretend we have a representative democracy, when in reality it is a representative corpotocracy.
    I think reality doesn't support you. Our primary elections are generally competitive when it comes to money. And, again, the voters have the choice. They are not restricted to voting for whoever has money - they can choose anyone in a primary they want. Nothing stopping them.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  10. #40
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,458

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

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    There are only three legal sources of funds NOW:

    1. individuals

    2. PACs, which can accept donations only from individuals (don't get them confused with SuperPACs)

    3. political parties, which can only accept money from the other two

    So all donations eventually come from individuals. Donations from corporate or union treasuries are banned. Corporations and unions can sponsor PACs and ask their shareholders, members, etc. for voluntary donations, but they can't give money to them.
    That's not entirely accurate.

    In January, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5 to 4 decision, Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, that corporations and unions essentially enjoy the same First Amendment protection of free speech as do individuals, because the groups are assemblages of individuals.

    The decision means that now, corporations and unions can express their free speech by donating directly to political candidates.


    Economy Watch - A way for corporations to contribute to political campaigns and preserve democracy at the same time
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Page 4 of 45 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... 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
  •