• 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!

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

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

  • Yes

    Votes: 53 75.7%
  • No

    Votes: 17 24.3%

  • Total voters
    70
YES
Reform, my concept, is to have very restricted political campaigns with very limited money used. Stopping these two sources , liberal and conservative,is but a step ion the right direction.. But do not expect any support from the conservatives (the political party from the 18th century).
 
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 not necessarily an evil...
I think that all groups should be heard...equally.
 
Okay, but you wouldn't say that you have no freedom of speech that involves your car, like, say, a bumper sticker. It's on your car, but it's still your speech. Or to use your car to drive around with a megaphone and speak your mind. And the people who own or run a corporation or other group can use it too, as much as they can use their personal property or money, to exercise their rights.

The difference being that no court would recognize my car as having personhood. Also being that no one else is employed to run my car they do not get associated with "supporting" someone that was elected and turned out to be a bad egg. In this country the phrase "guilt by association" is rampant.
 
No, because that's an unnecessary law.
I do agree that we should have no more laws than what is necessary. But, then we have "lawbreakers" and criminals..
IMO, it is criminal for any one group or individual to "buy an election".
 
An organization or a social entity in the way that you are talking about usually has one common goal directed at something specific, usually some sort of ideology or cause. Like La Raza, or anti-abortion/pro-choice or some such. In such cases everyone that is a part of those organizations agree on one basic principle. Why? Because each member of those types of organizations joined that organization for that specific purpose. As such it is logical that one or a few people speak for the whole. A corporation however has no such common goals. The ones that control the corporation does not ask Joe Blow that works in the mail department what ideas he may have or what politician he supports and no corporation requires any of thier employees to follow any specific credo. The only reason that people are a part of any corporation is to make money, not to be supporters or non-supporters to an ideaology. As such comparing the two is like comparing a human to a rock.
So what? Rights are not conditioned on the purpose of an organization.
 
The difference being that no court would recognize my car as having personhood. Also being that no one else is employed to run my car they do not get associated with "supporting" someone that was elected and turned out to be a bad egg. In this country the phrase "guilt by association" is rampant.
Of course no court would say your car is a person. But that's irrelevant. The SCOTUS did not declare corporations to be persons in Citizens United either. It simply said speech cannot be abridged regardless of the source.
 
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.

Oh, and if you don't pay taxes, are on welfare, or collect any kind of government assistance, grant, or loan, you can't donate to a political campaign.
Ridiculous, but then "very conservative" says it all.
 
Since so many people are camping out screaming about corporate greed, I can't for the life of me understand why more people wouldn't want to stop the flow of corporate (and Union) money from going into the hands (and pockets) of greedy politicians. If they want the position so badly, let them stomp the pavement and collect dollars from private individuals or spend their own money if they think they are so much smarter than the average bear.
 
I think we're in need of a law that reduces the overall amount of money going into political campaigns and increases the relative value of individual donations to those campaigns. Restricting corporate and union donations would do both. Could tie the limit on donations to a percentage of income taxes payed in the last year, so wealthy individuals can still donate more. I'd want donations to be open to public knowledge though. Anonymous donations are a cancer in our political system.
 
Since so many people are camping out screaming about corporate greed, I can't for the life of me understand why more people wouldn't want to stop the flow of corporate (and Union) money from going into the hands (and pockets) of greedy politicians.
Since all corporate or union donations to candidates are ALREADY ILLEGAL and have been for a long long time, and still are after Citizen's United, you don't have much of a point. The only source of money for campaigns is PACs (which can be sponsored by unions and corporations but can't use their money - they have to get voluntary donations from members, shareholders, etc) or individuals or parties.
 
So what? Rights are not conditioned on the purpose of an organization.

Rights are conditioned on people though. If a group of people wish to speak in one voice then it should choose a leader/s so that the message of the people is not lost in the masses.
 
I think we're in need of a law that reduces the overall amount of money going into political campaigns and increases the relative value of individual donations to those campaigns. Restricting corporate and union donations would do both.
Donations from unions and corporations are already banned. Donations from PACs sponsored by them (using voluntary donations from shareholders, members, etc.) are already limited to $5,000 per election. Citizen's United didn't change that either.
 
Rights are conditioned on people though. If a group of people wish to speak in one voice then it should choose a leader/s so that the message of the people is not lost in the masses.
Um, not sure what you mean by leader.
 
Of course no court would say your car is a person. But that's irrelevant. The SCOTUS did not declare corporations to be persons in Citizens United either. It simply said speech cannot be abridged regardless of the source.

Which effectively made corporations people. Show me one corporation that can think, and feel beyond the person controlling it.
 
Since all corporate or union donations to candidates are ALREADY ILLEGAL and have been for a long long time, and still are after Citizen's United, you don't have much of a point. The only source of money for campaigns is PACs (which can be sponsored by unions and corporations but can't use their money - they have to get voluntary donations from members, shareholders, etc) or individuals or parties.

If I don't have a point, why do they still receive money from them and why does this poll exist. PC's is a backdoor to the same money, so I'd say you are wrong. Opinions...we are all entitled to them.
 
Donations from unions and corporations are already banned. Donations from PACs sponsored by them (using voluntary donations from shareholders, members, etc.) are already limited to $5,000 per election. Citizen's United didn't change that either.

Corporations and unions can independantly fund political messages, which act as an indirect donation to whomever is supported in those messages. In the case of Hillary, for example, an independant organization was attempting to defame a presidential candidate, which would directly benefit Hillary's opponents. The money spent on Hillary is thus effectively a donation to her opponents' campaigns. Now, I don't necessarily have a problem with Citizens United, a non-profit political organization, making a statement like this. I do have a problem with America's major profitable organizations making statements like this.
 
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.

Oh, ding ding ding, did I find a lobbyist? umadbro?

Listen, you can define it however you want, but a lobbyist today is not some guy writing to Congress. Lobbyists today, for the most part, are slime ball, pieces of ****, who use money and other influences to get legislation passed that otherwise wouldn't. Sugar coat it if you want, but most people know what the job of a lobbyist is, and it is somewhere right below or above being a paparazzi.

Lobbying is not necessarily an evil...
I think that all groups should be heard...equally.

Until you can take the money and other kickbacks out of the equation, I disagree. The little guy doesn't get heard in Washington.
 
Last edited:
If I don't have a point, why do they still receive money from them and why does this poll exist. PC's is a backdoor to the same money, so I'd say you are wrong. Opinions...we are all entitled to them.
They DON'T receive money from them. The poll exists because someone doesn't get that. They do get money from PACs sponsored by them though. That's commonly referred to as money coming from them, but it's not really. A PAC gets voluntary donations from individuals only.
 
Oh, ding ding ding, did I find a lobbyist? umadbro? Listen, you can define it however you want, but a lobbyist today is not some guy writing to Congress. Lobbyists today, for the most part, are slime ball, pieces of ****, who use money and other influences to get legislation passed that otherwise wouldn't. Sugar coat it if you want, but most people know what the job of a lobbyist is, and it is somewhere right below or above being a paparazzi. Until you can take the money and other kickbacks out of the equation, I disagree. The little guy doesn't get heard in Washington.
And yet I'm the one who actually knows what I'm talking about, whereas you don't. And you're proof that most people don't know what a lobbyist's real job is. You would be smart to shut your mouth and listen to someone who actually does know, but I don't see that happening. And yeah, the little guy has a lobbyist - I was one of them.
 
Corporations and unions can independantly fund political messages, which act as an indirect donation to whomever is supported in those messages.
I reject calling speech about politics an "indirect donation." That's silly. Expressing an opinion about a candidate is not a donation in any way shape or form.
 
Well that is a good way to end a debate of any meaning. I think that your point is made.
As I made clear in the rest of the post, it was an invitation to discuss more, not to end debate. The debate started with my opponent asserting that it was already over because he knows more about lobbying than an actual lobbyist.
 
Awesome!



Um, false. Speech does the same thing. Not that it matters. Lobbying is a right, so spending money on it is a right.

And we were talking about speech anyway, not lobbying. Whatever. No difference.

So you agree that a restriction on spending on a right would be an unconstitutional restriction on that right. Which is obvious. Thanks.

I understand what you mean and what the law says... I don't agree that either are correct though.
 
Back
Top Bottom