• 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
It simply interferes with the honesty and integrity of those who represent us.

How exactly?

You will not get representative democracy if the person you elect is receiving a back hander from someone else - that is obvious.

Yes. So you get rid of him or her. Like you do when the rep isn't representing you for thousands of other possible reasons.
 
Simon W. Moon
I've read two of your posts on this subject. They are very salient, accurate, informative etc.; all goood stuff. But my simple point that you may have missed in this thread is the following. And quoting myself "I voted No for a practical reason. That is I don’t think such a law could be effectively enforced. Money moves so easily from person to person and place to place, that is the intent of money. So tracking it close to an election and enforcing a law in courts is not going to work."; and the only solution I see is "What we have to rely on are a sufficient number of educated voters that are resistant to dogma, advertising, and the ilk that they effectively decide elections." Do you have another solution that would work better? Thanks.
 
Last edited:
If that's what you think I am saying, then you have missed the whole point by a country mile. It's not about whether or not I agree with what's being said, it's about how the system rewards behavior which is bad for our country.

No, I'm saying that's what you're saying even if you don't know it.

I was not trying to say that you said sunshine was food. I was just pointing out that just because something "ultimately" comes from somewhere it doesn't actually mean that its the same thing as being what it actually comes from as in the difference between money coming from individuals or from artificial persons.

Yes, I know. And I was merely using your analogy to point out my point, which is that all sources of money for donations can be traced back to individuals, not other sources.

It's not about speech in general, it's about the right to lobby the govt instead of lobbying the electorate.

There's no practical difference between the two.
 
How exactly?



Yes. So you get rid of him or her. Like you do when the rep isn't representing you for thousands of other possible reasons.

Both your replies are to my saying the same thing in different ways. Look at how we decided we had to go in order to get fair and free elections. We decided that as well as everyone having the vote, we also had to provide private voting to make sure the person was not bribed. Both the US and the UK and doubtless other countries as well are in need of finding a way to enforce this lack of bribery on their politicians as well.
 
Both your replies are to my saying the same thing in different ways. Look at how we decided we had to go in order to get fair and free elections. We decided that as well as everyone having the vote, we also had to provide private voting to make sure the person was not bribed. Both the US and the UK and doubtless other countries as well are in need of finding a way to enforce this lack of bribery on their politicians as well.

Private voting makes it EASIER to bribe a voter. Think about it.

In the U.S., all donations to candidates are publicly reported and easily accessed by anyone, by the way. And they are donations to the campaign - to support their election. Much like one would, say, volunteer to help with an election, because you want the candidate to win. Donations don't go in the politician's pockets for personal use - that's actual bribery and it is illegal.
 
Private voting makes it EASIER to bribe a voter. Think about it.

No they don't. You could take a bribe for everyone in a private vote and still vote for the one who didn't pay you. In a private vote you vote for your best option.

In the U.S., all donations to candidates are publicly reported and easily accessed by anyone, by the way. And they are donations to the campaign - to support their election. Much like one would, say, volunteer to help with an election, because you want the candidate to win. Donations don't go in the politician's pockets for personal use - that's actual bribery and it is illegal.

I am aware they are donations to the campaign. The desire to get elected can make someone subject to bribery. That is enough. The job goes in their pocket so to speak.
 
Simon W. Moon
I've read two of your posts on this subject. They are very salient, accurate, informative etc.; all goood stuff. But my simple point that you may have missed in this thread is the following. And quoting myself "I voted No for a practical reason. That is I don’t think such a law could be effectively enforced. Money moves so easily from person to person and place to place, that is the intent of money. So tracking it close to an election and enforcing a law in courts is not going to work."; and the only solution I see is "What we have to rely on are a sufficient number of educated voters that are resistant to dogma, advertising, and the ilk that they effectively decide elections." Do you have another solution that would work better? Thanks.
If we wanted to, we could simply require all donations to campaigns be recorded. Using the donation limits, even if entity A gave money to person B to donate to the campaign, we'd still be much better off than the current situation. and in effect, because of the donation limits, that would be Person B's choice of what to do with their "voice." And, we would still be better off than the current system even if we don't create a perfect one.

No, I'm saying that's what you're saying even if you don't know it.
w/e. That's an empty allegation if ever I heard one.

There's no practical difference between the two.
That is also untrue. There're reasons why lobbying efforts are directed at the govt instead of the electorate. The reasons involve the practical differences between lobbying several hundred people who have a direct hand in the matter versus lobbying a few hundred millions who only affect things indirectly.
 
Last edited:
Private voting makes it EASIER to bribe a voter. Think about it.
The increased ease of bribing a single individuals who isn't being monitored is outweighed by the general ineffectiveness of having to bribe so many more people. The electorate more than an order of magnitude larger than the legislature.
 
No they don't. You could take a bribe for everyone in a private vote and still vote for the one who didn't pay you. In a private vote you vote for your best option.

On the other hand, you can't prosecute someone for taking a bribe if you don't know how they voted for.

I am aware they are donations to the campaign. The desire to get elected can make someone subject to bribery. That is enough. The job goes in their pocket so to speak.

The desire to get elected can make someone subject to thousands of different things, some (but not most, since most are in full view of the voters) that may be contrary to the interest of the voters. This is merely one of them.
 
The increased ease of bribing a single individuals who isn't being monitored is outweighed by the general ineffectiveness of having to bribe so many more people. The electorate more than an order of magnitude larger than the legislature.

Doesn't seem to be affected by the secret ballot though.
 
w/e. That's an empty allegation if ever I heard one.

No, it's simply pointing out the fundamental flaw in your logic.

That is also untrue. There're reasons why lobbying efforts are directed at the govt instead of the electorate. The reasons involve the practical differences between lobbying several hundred people who have a direct hand in the matter versus lobbying a few hundred millions who only affect things indirectly.

Okay, so how do you make a law that clearly distinguishes between the two, i.e. defines lobbying in a way that doesn't encompass the other?
 
On the other hand, you can't prosecute someone for taking a bribe if you don't know how they voted for.

and you are not going to pay someone money when you don't know who they voted for. Private voting ends bribery on voting.

The desire to get elected can make someone subject to thousands of different things, some (but not most, since most are in full view of the voters) that may be contrary to the interest of the voters. This is merely one of them.

We hear that American's are subject to the wishes of a band of people who dish out the money. In the UK there are people funding all three main parties. Why on earth would that be.....obvious. If we want proper politics for the people, then the corruption which has become ingrained into funding of elections has to end.
 
and you are not going to pay someone money when you don't know who they voted for. Private voting ends bribery on voting.

So do you want to make votes in Congress private too?

We hear that American's are subject to the wishes of a band of people who dish out the money. In the UK there are people funding all three main parties. Why on earth would that be.....obvious. If we want proper politics for the people, then the corruption which has become ingrained into funding of elections has to end.

No, you simply vote for someone who doesn't take the money. Pretty simple.
 
No, it's simply pointing out the fundamental flaw in your logic.
You didn't point anything out. You made an unsupported accusation. If you had said something and then provided some sort of supporting evidence, then you MAY have done what you think you have done.

Okay, so how do you make a law that clearly distinguishes between the two, i.e. defines lobbying in a way that doesn't encompass the other?
Is there some difficulty in distinguishing between the legislature the electorate and the govt? I am not sure there's a real problem with that.
 
You didn't point anything out. You made an unsupported accusation. If you had said something and then provided some sort of supporting evidence, then you MAY have done what you think you have done.

Your views, as stated by the part I quoted, indicate that the only reason you want to suppress speech is because you disagree with it. You think it has been bad for the country. That's not a legitimate reason for suppressing speech.

Is there some difficulty in distinguishing between the legislature the electorate and the govt? I am not sure there's a real problem with that.

So give me some basic wording for such a law.

Yes, when you're talking about two activities that both amount to nothing more than free speech, it's awfully hard to distinguish between the two. Are you going to, say, forbid someone from ever saying "Congress should do X"?
 
Last edited:
So you will only vote for multi millionaires who can afford to fund themselves?

No, you vote for whomever you want to.

Are you saying money is required to run for office? Hmmm. If so...why?
 
No, you vote for whomever you want to.

I pointed out that some people fund all three main political parties in the UK - clearly for gain. You said then avoid voting for someone who receives the money. The question would be who is left.

I am finished. You do not address the issue which is corruption. Clearly if people fund all three main parties in the UK, then they have more of a say on policy than the people of the UK. If we want genuine representative democracy, then we need to end this corruption and we need to get people more interested in politics again. The occupy movement is making a good start on that ;)
 
I pointed out that some people fund all three main political parties in the UK - clearly for gain. You said then avoid voting for someone who receives the money. The question would be who is left.

You can't find a single candidate who doesn't take money? (In the U.S. at least, candidates fund themselves and have only a small dependence on the parties). Or run yourself without taking money?

I am finished. You do not address the issue which is corruption. Clearly if people fund all three main parties in the UK, then they have more of a say on policy than the people of the UK.

No, that's not clear at all. You're just assuming your conclusion.

If we want genuine representative democracy, then we need to end this corruption and we need to get people more interested in politics again. The occupy movement is making a good start on that ;)

The Occupy Movement is already raising money for its own activities. To which I laugh, since they or you won't get it.
 
You can't find a single candidate who doesn't take money? (In the U.S. at least, candidates fund themselves and have only a small dependence on the parties). Or run yourself without taking money?

As I general rule I believe they are funded by their party. Hence why the suggestion that the tax payer give more to each party in order to limit funding from people with an ulterior motive.

You however are by what you are suggesting here, limiting your politicians to those who have a bob or two.


No, that's not clear at all. You're just assuming your conclusion.

Like I said, it is impossible if someone refuses to see what is in front of them. But you know a lot depends on what you want from your Representative Democracy. Recently I read that it was a system which allowed for a change of Government without violence. The important thing is keeping people believing it is genuinely giving them a voice. The low voting rate suggest that feeling is not strong at the moment.

The Occupy Movement is already raising money for its own activities. To which I laugh, since they or you won't get it.

what's to laugh at and why should they give their money to me? What is interesting is it spreading about the place. There British occupy began to be in solidarity with the US. It is quietly getting interest.
The Occupy movement that has spread from Wall Street has electrified people across the globe. It has focused attention on the crimes of the financial elite, as well as raising profound questions about the way we live. This is a movement that resonates with millions across the world who agree that the "99%" are suffering while the "1%" enrich themselves.

We therefore oppose utterly the recent attempts to criminalise and violently disperse occupiers in a string of US cities. This is a deliberate, co-ordinated process of trying to stifle protest. We note that Oakland mayor Jean Quan told the BBC that the move against Occupy Oakland came after a conference call "with 18 cities across the country who had the same situation".

As the 1% comes together in an effort to crush the movement, the 99% must come together to defend it. We stand with the US Occupy movement and similar groups across the world. We are also appalled that the City of London Corporation has renewed its threat to take legal action against the St Paul's occupation. This well-planned occupation has encouraged debates everywhere about the bailout of the banks, the behaviour of corporations, environmental degradation and the future of society. It should be encouraged, not met by intimidation.

Letters: We stand by the Occupy movement | UK news | The Guardian

Britain used to be quite alive politically. In the past 30 years it has gone to sleep as people have felt they have no way of change - very nice and going with the neo-con distaste for democracy. Very quietly the occupy movement is waking people up and it is good that it is people also together across continents. We have yet to see how it will develop but it could be interesting.
 
As I general rule I believe they are funded by their party. Hence why the suggestion that the tax payer give more to each party in order to limit funding from people with an ulterior motive.

So start a new party and don't take the money. If the voters are so desperate for one that doesn't take the money, they should flock to this new party.

You however are by what you are suggesting here, limiting your politicians to those who have a bob or two.

False. Most of the funding for our campaigns, despite the whining you may hear, comes from the people.
 
Your views, as stated by the part I quoted, indicate that the only reason you want to suppress speech is because you disagree with it.
LOL. Again, it's not about the content of the speech and whether or not I agree with that content. It's about the effects of how the system is structured. I am all for various sorts of ideas being floated and discussed by the electorate.
and for the record, here is what you quoted:
At the moment artificial persons have more rights than is good for us as a nation. My case is that artificial person should be restricted from lobbying our govt because it produces perverse results that are harmful to the country as a whole--but beneficial to the lobbying groups and the legislators promoting them.
That text actually does not indicate what you're saying that you think it does.

You think it has been bad for the country. That's not a legitimate reason for suppressing speech.
Compelling national interest is an already a very well established reason for suppressing speech. So I am not sure where you got the idea that it isn't.

Are you going to, say, forbid someone from ever saying "Congress should do X"?
It's still not about what is said. It's not at all about the content of the speech. It's really not. It's about who is doing the "speaking" [the term is being used very loosely all of a sudden] and to whom in what circumstances.
Is it really that hard to distinguish between these two sets? Lobbying a member of govt {a corporation making donations to a political party or a PAC, a corporation taking a Congress critter golfing or on trip} and lobbying the electorate {that same corporation publishing an ad in a newspaper, buying airtime, creating a web site?}

Further, even if there are some grey areas somewhere where I personally have troubling wording a distinction, that's really not much of a case against trying to make the govt more beholden to private citizens who are real persons than to artificial persons.
 
So start a new party and don't take the money. If the voters are so desperate for one that doesn't take the money, they should flock to this new party.
You are being silly now. People do occasionally stand as independents and even more occasionally get elected. Britian's political parties used to be funded by party members but due to the lack of interest during the last 30 years as we become more and more right wing and people believe no one represents them, they have lost most of their members.

The problem including the problem of tapped individual donations is discussed here

BBC News - Today - Party funding 'not sexy, but important'



False. Most of the funding for our campaigns, despite the whining you may hear, comes from the people.

You said the person should fund them self or run without money. Now, as with everything you are changing what you are saying again.
 
You can't find a single candidate who doesn't take money? (In the U.S. at least, candidates fund themselves and have only a small dependence on the parties).
Cite for this assertion please.
 
False. Most of the funding for our campaigns, despite the whining you may hear, comes from the people.
"ultimately" or directly?
Could you provide the source for your assertion on this matter.
 
Back
Top Bottom