• 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

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Would you support an amendment to the United States Constitution which would bar corporations and unions from financially contributing to elections?

Why or why not?
 
I would absolutely support it. I think campaign money should come from US taxpayers funnelled through the Federal government. A certain amount of money allotted and, within certain guidelines, given out in percentages depending on results of primary elections.

Imagine that. Nobody can buy an election!!

McCain spent $300 million
Obama spent $600 million

My world:

McCain spends $300 million
Obama spends $300 million

'Course my world ain't ever gunna' happen...
 
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.
 
I would absolutely support it. I think campaign money should come from US taxpayers funnelled through the Federal government. A certain amount of money allotted and, within certain guidelines, given out in percentages depending on results of primary elections.

Imagine that. Nobody can buy an election!!

McCain spent $300 million
Obama spent $600 million

My world:

McCain spends $300 million
Obama spends $300 million

'Course my world ain't ever gunna' happen...

Just think 600 million tax dollars used to elect someone.... When we could of used that to save kids or give hand outs to the poor.
 
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. :)
 
Any organization that's subject to federal income tax should be able to donate money how they see fit.
 
Any organization that's subject to federal income tax should be able to donate money how they see fit.

So you are saying if there were no corporate taxes then you would support an amendment barring corporations from contributing money to elections?
 
Last edited:
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.

I doubt it. Unions would have to give union money to union members that they in turn would have to use specifically as a campaign donation. There is no way a union could enforce that kind of policy.

Anyways, the Tea Party proves that the interests of corporations are well protected and served in this country.
 
Last edited:
So you are saying if there were no corporate taxes then you would support an amendment barring corporations from contributing money to elections?

Hummmm, never really thought about it because there's no way corporations aren't going to be taxed.
 
Hummmm, never really thought about it because there's no way corporations aren't going to be taxed.

If corporations were not allowed to contribute money to politics then I would have no problem eliminating corporate taxes. As it stands, corporations are treated as individuals and given all the Constitutional protections of individuals, and so if they gave up that power, I would see no reason to tax them.
 
If corporations were not allowed to contribute money to politics then I would have no problem eliminating corporate taxes. As it stands, corporations are treated as individuals and given all the Constitutional protections of individuals, and so if they gave up that power, I would see no reason to tax them.

So your saying you would only tax em' because they contribute money?
 
Last edited:
I doubt it. Unions would have to give union money to union members that they in turn would have to use specifically as a campaign donation. There is no way a union could enforce that kind of policy.

Anyways, the Tea Party proves that the interests of corporations are well protected and served in this country.

LOL, corporations are so evil. It's not like they're not made up of people and certainly do nothing good like provide jobs, not to mention the products and services people want and need.
 
Last edited:
Let people donate money to a general fund that is distributed equally among the people running. But also have a cap on the general election fund and what goes over that cap goes straight into the programs that need money the most.
 
I agree with maggie, campaigns should be paid for by tax payer dollars so everything is equal, and there is less lobbying from business's, unions etc. I don't think it should be 300 million, but something small like 10-15 million should suffice.
 
Let people donate money to a general fund that is distributed equally among the people running. But also have a cap on the general election fund and what goes over that cap goes straight into the programs that need money the most.

Who would donate to a fund that's going to be just as evenly distributed to the guy you don't want to win?
 
def think they should be barred from donating money, too be honest I find it pretty disgraceful how much the politicians get from these companies its no better than the Mob donating money back in the day to city council elections etc. I would also love to see the mud slinging campaigns banned, I want to hear what your political stance is not about how drunk your rival gets and how often he uses youporn.
 
I agree with maggie, campaigns should be paid for by tax payer dollars so everything is equal, and there is less lobbying from business's, unions etc. I don't think it should be 300 million, but something small like 10-15 million should suffice.

Of course I disagree. Right now campaign contributions are voluntary. I certainly don't think it's one more thing the government should get to charge tax payers for and control.
 
Of course I disagree. Right now campaign contributions are voluntary. I certainly don't think it's one more thing the government should get to charge tax payers for and control.

Money is one of the biggest problems in politics right now, eliminating that to a big extent would greatly help our political process IMO, and would gladly support that my taxpayer dollars go to that. And really in America, 10-15 million isn't all that much.
 
Money is one of the biggest problems in politics right now, eliminating that to a big extent would greatly help our political process IMO, and would gladly support that my taxpayer dollars go to that. And really in America, 10-15 million isn't all that much.

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?
 
If corporations were not allowed to contribute money to politics then I would have no problem eliminating corporate taxes. As it stands, corporations are treated as individuals and given all the Constitutional protections of individuals, and so if they gave up that power, I would see no reason to tax them.
Taxation without representation. So if corporations can't support their desired representation, then it would be unfair to tax them.

According to this FEC regulation, corporations and unions are currently prohibited from making political contributions: Citizens' Guide
The law also prohibits contributions from corporations and labor unions.
Considering this thread's topic, I would like some clarification on how the corporations and unions are currently skating around the federal restriction. Do they have individuals set up committees and then they fund the committee?

Regardless, even if we allowed the two to make contributions, how would we decide the maximum contribution amount, like individuals have maximum contribution amounts.

And, to support representation of taxation, do we then give corporations the right to vote, and, if so, how many votes does a corporation get.

This could become involved.

Keeping this all fair would be a challenge.
 
Taxation without representation. So if corporations can't support their desired representation, then it would be unfair to tax them.

According to this FEC regulation, corporations and unions are currently prohibited from making political contributions: Citizens' Guide
Considering this thread's topic, I would like some clarification on how the corporations and unions are currently skating around the federal restriction. Do they have individuals set up committees and then they fund the committee?

Regardless, even if we allowed the two to make contributions, how would we decide the maximum contribution amount, like individuals have maximum contribution amounts.

And, to support representation of taxation, do we then give corporations the right to vote, and, if so, how many votes does a corporation get.

This could become involved.

Keeping this all fair would be a challenge.

PACs, soft money, independent expenditures, lobbying, issue ads, and now due to the recent Supreme Court ruling, unlimited corporate spending on elections.

Corporations already have personhood under law.
 
Would you support an amendment to the United States Constitution which would bar corporations and unions from financially contributing to elections?

Why or why not?

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.
 
Who would donate to a fund that's going to be just as evenly distributed to the guy you don't want to win?

Those who need PR or are socially responsible. That guy that you do not want to win should be voted down, not taken down by giving the favored person more money. If someone 'wins' because they had more money to mount a campaign, how is that Democracy? The decision on who may win a election should never be based on money it should only be decided in the ballot box.

And relax I am opposed to redistribution of wealth, well except in the case commerce and labor. After all working and selling and buying is what makes the world go around.
 
PACs, soft money, independent expenditures, lobbying, issue ads, and now due to the recent Supreme Court ruling, unlimited corporate spending on elections.

Corporations already have personhood under law.
Okay, then to be clear, what is your answer and why to the OP?
 
Back
Top Bottom