• 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
Im all for it...but it has to be NO personal donations either...or it wont work...the rich would still control elections..

Im all for the Govt giving each candidate X amt of cash to campaign with and mandating FREE air time on tv and thats it...
With the limited time they will have to to talk about what they are actually going to do...and spare the rest of us months up on months of bs...like this absurd gop primary.
 
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...

They do indeed.

They choose between the options provided to them by monied interests.
 
snodog said:
85% of elections are won by whomever spends the most money. What does that say about the intelligence of the average voter?
Click to expand...

If your conclusion is that voters are dumb, why let them vote in the first place?
 
What if...? said:
They do indeed.

They choose between the options provided to them by monied interests.
Click to expand...

False.

Voters have a choice of anyone they want. They can vote in the primaries, remember? Their choices are not limited. Anyone can run in a primary election, even with little or no money, and get on the ballot.
 
lpast said:
Im all for it...but it has to be NO personal donations either...or it wont work...the rich would still control elections..

Im all for the Govt giving each candidate X amt of cash to campaign with and mandating FREE air time on tv and thats it...
With the limited time they will have to to talk about what they are actually going to do...and spare the rest of us months up on months of bs...like this absurd gop primary.
Click to expand...

So now the government has total control over the election process! Great!
 
I would absolutely oppose it... lock ,stock, and barrel.

you have the right limit your own speech by not donating, but leave everyone else to decide for themselves.

and I will not support public financing either... I do not want my , or anyone else's, tax dollars going to candidates that I/they do not support for election.

so tired of people wanting to strip other people/groups of their rights it isn't even funny... we are turning into a nation of fascists.
 
misterman said:
False.

Voters have a choice of anyone they want. They can vote in the primaries, remember? Their choices are not limited. Anyone can run in a primary election, even with little or no money, and get on the ballot.
Click to expand...

lots of people think everyone else shouldn't have rights or choice... only themselves.
 
Thrilla said:
lots of people think everyone else shouldn't have rights or choice... only themselves.
Click to expand...

Or worse - that someone else having a right means they don't. Usually, that's a nice excuse for laziness.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I could care less what SCOTUS says on that matter... spending money to influence a campaign is not speech, even if metaphorically. They are wrong.
Click to expand...

Obviously a restriction on spending money on speech is a restriction on speech. It's absurd to say otherwise. That's the whole point of the restriction - to limit speech.

Suppose the government passed a law saying you can't spend money on an abortion. Would that be a restriction on abortion rights? Of course.

How about a law that says you have a right to an attorney - you just can't pay him. Obviously unconstitutional.

Hey, I've got it! A law that says you can't buy a gun. You can own one, you see, just not buy one.

Imagine a law that says you can't buy bumper stickers, signs, paint - or even pay money to register a URL for a website.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely.

And barring professional lobbyists from D.C.
 
CriticalThought said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was half joking, but you're ****ing right.

The upcoming elections are going to be a propaganda ****storm.

With any luck it will leave such a bad taste in everyones mouth they'll force some changes.
 
misterman said:
False.

Voters have a choice of anyone they want. They can vote in the primaries, remember? Their choices are not limited. Anyone can run in a primary election, even with little or no money, and get on the ballot.
Click to expand...

That is disingenuous at best...
 
misterman said:
What is the purpose of a corporation?
Click to expand...

Primarily to provide limits to individual liability.

There is absolutely no need to confer "personhood" on a non-human entity.

Other mechanisms could be easily devised to facilitate business and provide liability limits WITHOUT conferring personhood.

All those people who make up a corporation ALREADY have rights. They have no need for an ADDITIONAL voice.
 
misterman said:
Obviously a restriction on spending money on speech is a restriction on speech. It's absurd to say otherwise. That's the whole point of the restriction - to limit speech.

Suppose the government passed a law saying you can't spend money on an abortion. Would that be a restriction on abortion rights? Of course.

How about a law that says you have a right to an attorney - you just can't pay him. Obviously unconstitutional.

Hey, I've got it! A law that says you can't buy a gun. You can own one, you see, just not buy one.

Imagine a law that says you can't buy bumper stickers, signs, paint - or even pay money to register a URL for a website.
Click to expand...

Wallets cannot be compared to voices. We each have one voice. Some people have one dollar, others have millions.

The comparison is absolutely ridiculous.

You can get an abortion without money. Lawyers work pro bono. none of those comparisons are anything like buying an election where another person will vote the way that you (the few) want against the opposition of (the many).
 
misterman said:
Why? Just saying so doesn't make it so. Nothing I said is inaccurate.
Click to expand...

It makes it so because it is so.
It isn't inaccurate and that is what makes it disingenuous.
We obviously can't vote for whoever we want.
We obviously are limited to who is presented to us.
We are obviously limited to who wants to be in office.

To say otherwise is absurd.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I could care less what SCOTUS says on that matter... spending money to influence a campaign is not speech, even if metaphorically. They are wrong.
Click to expand...

tell that to every media outlet that has ever existed in this country.....

hell, under your regime , the Federalist Papers couldn't be published...
 
misterman said:
Lobbying is a fundamental right protected by the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

Unless we all have equal access to lobby, this is nothing more than another disingenuous comment. We don't. We can "lobby" all we want by writing them, but we don't have equal access to lawmakers time. We can't lunch with them or get into their offices and present bills for consideration. Do you work for the DC machine or something?
 
What if...? said:
Primarily to provide limits to individual liability.

There is absolutely no need to confer "personhood" on a non-human entity.

Other mechanisms could be easily devised to facilitate business and provide liability limits WITHOUT conferring personhood.

All those people who make up a corporation ALREADY have rights. They have no need for an ADDITIONAL voice.
Click to expand...

please... do elaborate on these easily devised mechanisms.
 
Thrilla said:
tell that to every media outlet that has ever existed in this country.....

hell, under your regime , the Federalist Papers couldn't be published...
Click to expand...

Why couldn't they? I must have missed the step where I was in favor of recognizing what speech actually constitutes and where I because a dictator. Please enlighten me. Thanks...
 
Thrilla said:
please... do elaborate on these easily devised mechanisms.
Click to expand...

Regardless of the other mechanisms... his point is correct. Personhood for corporations is just another form of greed and control.
 
misterman said:
If your conclusion is that voters are dumb, why let them vote in the first place?
Click to expand...

Given the outcome of the last three Presidential elections, there's plenty of evidence to support that conclusion.

With the First Amendment as it is, there's nothing that can be done. It would take an amendment, but it might not be a bad idea. Democracy has been hijacked by moneyed interests and the two major parties.
 
What is a LOBBY? (e.g. the energy lobby)

A LOBBY is simple a UNION of Corporations. Corps unionize the gain collective bargaining power with Government.

Corps make a contribution to the Lobbying firm (union) and allow the money to used to buy access and push for their collective interests.


So, restricting Unions, Corps, and Lobbying groups from access would allow the Fed Gov to work the way it was supposed to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom