• 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 said:
now due to the recent Supreme Court ruling, unlimited corporate spending on elections.
Click to expand...

Unlimited spending on speech is what the SCOTUS ruled. Not contributions to candidates. Those are still regulated the same as before.
 
Freedom From al said:
If someone 'wins' because they had more money to mount a campaign, how is that Democracy?
Click to expand...

BECAUSE THE VOTERS STILL CHOSE HIM!!!!!

If the voters prefer the guy who blasts the most TV ads at them, that's their choice!
 
CriticalThought said:
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?
Click to expand...

Corporate and union money are still banned from donating money to candidates or parties. Citizen's United did not change that.

Citizens United only said that corporations (and unions) have freedom of speech, and can spend money on political speech. And I would oppose any amendment to change that.
 
MaggieD said:
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...
Click to expand...

Um, that's still $600 million. Where's that come from?
 
Ontologuy said:
Okay, then to be clear, what is your answer and why to the OP?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ontologuy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
X Factor said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

.
 
whysoserious said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

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:
Your Star said:
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.
Click to expand...

You realize that X Factor just described the current system for presidential elections, right?
 
misterman said:
BECAUSE THE VOTERS STILL CHOSE HIM!!!!!

If the voters prefer the guy who blasts the most TV ads at them, that's their choice!
Click to expand...

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.
 
apdst said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
CriticalThought said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
CriticalThought said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
misterman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...
 
misterman said:
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.
Click to expand...

I didn't pay for votes. I paid for the people who could run.

That is what you don't get. The candidates you see on TV are only the ones who can obtain the funding from corporations, unions, and other special interests groups. The other candidates are filtered out because they can't obtain the funding from those groups. As such we only get to vote between candidates who are already in the pockets of corporations, unions, and other special interests groups.
 
I don't have a problem with this idea. Nobody loses any rights since they can still donate as individuals.
 
misterman said:
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.
Click to expand...


But, if you restrict political donations to individuals, removing the ability of corporations, unions, special interests, non-profits, etc., you can help insure that politicians aren't beholding to those orginizations.
 
misterman said:
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.
Click to expand...

How much money does it take to run for President?

It costs at least 300 million. That is the reality.

Where do you think that money goes? Why do you think people who don't have that money stand a chance against those who do?

I suggest you research this issue a bit more. You might be astonished how little of a representative democracy we have left.
 
I would support stopping the contributions because it would mean less money for constant bombardment of voters with negative ads and half-truths/lies. It would also level the playing field somewhat between those with support of the rich and powerful and those with the support of the normal people.
 
misterman said:
BECAUSE THE VOTERS STILL CHOSE HIM!!!!!

If the voters prefer the guy who blasts the most TV ads at them, that's their choice!
Click to expand...


You missed the point. The one one with the most TV ads was there because someone(s) with money wanted you to vote for them. That scenario is putting the decision not in the voters hands but in the hands of those that gave the politician the money. Which negates the purpose and the design of our Representative Democracy.

So in reality the voters did not make the decision, the backers with the most money did.

People who vote for the person with the most TV ads reinforces the need for the Electoral College.
 
CriticalThought said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
apdst said:
That's not entirely accurate.
Click to expand...

Your source is completely wrong.

Citizen's United is one of the most misunderstood decisions ever. It did NOT free corporations to give directly to candidates.
 
Freedom From al said:
You missed the point. The one one with the most TV ads was there because someone(s) with money wanted you to vote for them. That scenario is putting the decision not in the voters hands but in the hands of those that gave the politician the money. Which negates the purpose and the design of our Representative Democracy.

So in reality the voters did not make the decision, the backers with the most money did.

People who vote for the person with the most TV ads reinforces the need for the Electoral College.
Click to expand...

Wow. You're trying to talk yourself into believing that the voters don't actually walk into a voting booth and make a choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom