• 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
misterman said:
Well, maybe corporations that get tax breaks or contracts. Unions don't get any government money now.
Click to expand...

Sure they do. They got hundreds of billions of stimulus dollars, they got the payout when Obama stole Chrysler and sold it to Italy. The government keeps the unions alive just as much as they keep large corporations alive. Half the corporations the government bails out are bailed out because they have significant union labor.
 
misterman said:
Wow. You're trying to talk yourself into believing that the voters don't actually walk into a voting booth and make a choice.
Click to expand...

Well of course the person in the voting booth made the vote that they wanted based on the information that they had at the time when they voted. That is a simple and consistent observation on your part. And is completely accurate for individuals that think on their own. Collective mentality on the other hand is a different story.

People who belong to a collective whether it be religious or political employ group thought. People belonging to collectives tend to all vote the same way and for the same people (in most cases). Are those people really making the decision or are their leaders making the decisions for them?

Now lets look at elections. How many of those running for an office are there because someone(s) paid to get them on the ballot? The choices of a good politician are very very limited even in the best of times. The more politicians to chose from strengthens Democracy. If we put all of our money into just a few politicians we will not be strengthening Democracy. A narrow field gets narrow results. Look at the current Presidential choices. Every single person running sucks, all that money and we still have no one to vote for.
 
friday said:
Sure they do. They got hundreds of billions of stimulus dollars, they got the payout when Obama stole Chrysler and sold it to Italy. The government keeps the unions alive just as much as they keep large corporations alive. Half the corporations the government bails out are bailed out because they have significant union labor.
Click to expand...

Unions didn't get stimulus money. That went to the corporations that employ the workers that are union members, as you noted.
 
Freedom From al said:
Well of course the person in the voting booth made the vote that they wanted based on the information that they had at the time when they voted. That is a simple and consistent observation on your part. And is completely accurate for individuals that think on their own. Collective mentality on the other hand is a different story.
Click to expand...

Do not start with any argument with a premise that you are smarter than the voters, etc. Won't go anywhere with me.
 
misterman said:
Unions didn't get stimulus money. That went to the corporations that employ the workers that are union members, as you noted.
Click to expand...

In some cases. In other cases the stimulus gave money to state governments to hire union teachers, union firemen, union construction and other union positions.
 
Why worry about commercials when people like Rupert Murdoch own an entire network?
 
friday said:
In some cases. In other cases the stimulus gave money to state governments to hire union teachers, union firemen, union construction and other union positions.
Click to expand...

Okay, good point. But still none went directly to unions.
 
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...
I voted no since I believe everyone should be allowed to petition the government. Unions and corporations aren't people so they don't petition the government, the leadership of each entity does......they are human so they have the 1st Amendment right to petition the government. If you don't like the tax treatment of corporate/union petitioning, that's a separate discussion. If you don't like how politicians are influenced by corp/union petitioning......vote for someone else.
 
misterman said:
Okay, good point. But still none went directly to unions.
Click to expand...

You could argue that money rarely goes to corporations either. They just get to keep more money because of tax deductions and credits. In the end unions and corporations both benefit from government stimulus and other activities. End that and you will end union and corporation contributions to government. Would you spend millions on lobbying if they weren't allowed to do anything for you?
 
friday said:
You could argue that money rarely goes to corporations either. They just get to keep more money because of tax deductions and credits. In the end unions and corporations both benefit from government stimulus and other activities. End that and you will end union and corporation contributions to government. Would you spend millions on lobbying if they weren't allowed to do anything for you?
Click to expand...
I agree. If you want to reduce the effort spent on influencing politicians, reduce the power of said politician. It really is that simple.
 
friday said:
You could argue that money rarely goes to corporations either. They just get to keep more money because of tax deductions and credits. In the end unions and corporations both benefit from government stimulus and other activities. End that and you will end union and corporation contributions to government. Would you spend millions on lobbying if they weren't allowed to do anything for you?
Click to expand...

You're assuming that giving them money is the only thing the government can do for them. Money isn't a big factor. It's regulation and taxes and that sort of thing that really matters to both.
 
Your Star said:
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.
Click to expand...

That, and modify FCC licenses so that "x" number of commercial slots are made available to candidates during election season as part of their PSA requirements. Passed out by a lottery, so nobody knows what slots they're getting beforehand.
 
What if...? said:
That, and modify FCC licenses so that "x" number of commercial slots are made available to candidates during election season as part of their PSA requirements. Passed out by a lottery, so nobody knows what slots they're getting beforehand.
Click to expand...

Now we're getting somewhere.
 
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 all they'll do instead is funnel that money into PACs to get around it.
 
misterman said:
You're assuming that giving them money is the only thing the government can do for them. Money isn't a big factor. It's regulation and taxes and that sort of thing that really matters to both.
Click to expand...

Well sure, regulation is another huge aspect. Can you imagine how much lobbying money is being directed towards the FDA and HHS right now?
 
Ontologuy said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think it would be good to go whole hog.

Citizenship for corporations.

1 vote each.

Limited to individual donation limits.

"Incarceration" for criminal conviction. All profits for the length of the sentence go to the state. No dividends. No bonuses. Criminal sanctions for members of said corporation who play games trying to "beat" this system.

If they want to be people, let them be PEOPLE.
 
What if...? said:
That, and modify FCC licenses so that "x" number of commercial slots are made available to candidates during election season as part of their PSA requirements. Passed out by a lottery, so nobody knows what slots they're getting beforehand.
Click to expand...

Which will just mean that politicians will pay for internet advertisements to get an edge instead.
 
What if...? said:
I think it would be good to go whole hog.

Citizenship for corporations.

1 vote each.

Limited to individual donation limits.

"Incarceration" for criminal conviction. All profits for the length of the sentence go to the state. No dividends. No bonuses. Criminal sanctions for members of said corporation who play games trying to "beat" this system.

If they want to be people, let them be PEOPLE.
Click to expand...

Lord. The first thing a greedy billionaire would do would be to create 5 million small corporations solely for the purpose of having 5 million votes.
 
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...

But what if they prefer the guy NOT pre-selected by money in the "wealth primary"?

Money chooses who we get to choose from, then its just a game to determine who gets to feed at the national trough FIRST, and who has to settle for sloppy seconds.

But we still get who money wants, 94% of the time.
 
What if...? said:
I think it would be good to go whole hog.

Citizenship for corporations.

1 vote each.

Limited to individual donation limits.

"Incarceration" for criminal conviction. All profits for the length of the sentence go to the state. No dividends. No bonuses. Criminal sanctions for members of said corporation who play games trying to "beat" this system.

If they want to be people, let them be PEOPLE.
Click to expand...

What is the purpose of a corporation?
 
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...

Actually, I think x's idea might work.

Who would yoy vote for?

The guy who took no special interests money, or the guy who runs on pubpic financing?

Who do you think would be most likely to be working for YOU?

And it might even be passable, where eliminating money is not, because it would require congress critters to vote AGAINST their own interests.
 
samsmart said:
Which will just mean that politicians will pay for internet advertisements to get an edge instead.
Click to expand...

I've got a crazy idea to get around all this, but its crazy.

Trust the voters.

Nah, sorry, never mind.
 
misterman said:
Do not start with any argument with a premise that you are smarter than the voters, etc. Won't go anywhere with me.
Click to expand...

85% of elections are won by whomever spends the most money. What does that say about the intelligence of the average voter?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom