• 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
you keep banking on meaningless polls.... i'll keep banking on 200+ years of historical fact.
we'll meet up after the elections and see who fared better... deal?

do you realize the number one reason an incumbent leaves office is ..retirement?
running for reelection and losing is not common whatsoever.

It should tell you something, that you could not come up with a single thing the GOP has done since 2010 that a great majority of the American public approves of.
 
how do you know we can't limit the politicians themselves?.. it's never been attempted by any congress... ever.
lots of attempts at limiting the private money though... every single attempt has been a failure.

i'm assuming that your idea of starting on level ground has something to do with public financing...
there are lots of problems with that as well... mostly i balk at the idea because i do not want my money going to candidates i do not support...i don't care if it's the name of equality or some such nonsense... it's wrong.

Im talking limiting the candidates and politicians when running for office...and leveling the playing field...everyone has the same amount of everything....Now they have the untasteful necessity to actually run on ideas to STAND OUT...not merely stand out because they have the most money to flood their district with ads...
 
It should tell you something, that you could not come up with a single thing the GOP has done since 2010 that a great majority of the American public approves of.

yes, it tells me i'm not interested in entertaining your red herrings.

whatever the GOP ( or Democrats for that matter) has done or not done is irreverent to my argument.

there comes a time in life when peoples political idealism is slaughtered upon altar of stark reality... sadly, your time is coming .. and it's fine that you refuse to even entertain that as a possibility , let alone an inevitability... that's your choice to make
 
Im talking limiting the candidates and politicians when running for office...and leveling the playing field...everyone has the same amount of everything....Now they have the untasteful necessity to actually run on ideas to STAND OUT...not merely stand out because they have the most money to flood their district with ads...

ya mean like limiting candidate expenditures?... i'm cool with that.
so far all we have ever done is try to limit constituent contributions, and i'm not cool with that.

not sure how you are going to guarantee equal airtime though.... not sure you should even try.
 
yes, it tells me i'm not interested in entertaining your red herrings.

whatever the GOP ( or Democrats for that matter) has done or not done is irreverent to my argument.

there comes a time in life when peoples political idealism is slaughtered upon altar of stark reality... sadly, your time is coming .. and it's fine that you refuse to even entertain that as a possibility , let alone an inevitability... that's your choice to make


The fact that the GOP has not done a single thing since 2010 that a great majority of Americans approve of, is a red herring in a discussion of possible election results?

That is certainly a unique reality you've got going there.
 
ya mean like limiting candidate expenditures?... i'm cool with that.
so far all we have ever done is try to limit constituent contributions, and i'm not cool with that.

not sure how you are going to guarantee equal airtime though.... not sure you should even try.

Thats exactly what im saying....you cant stop people from giving money to them...we have to make it so everyone can spend the same amount.

Every candidate gets the same amount of airtime...they get the same amount to spend on ads etc...all taxpayer funded...may the best person win...NOT THE RICHEST PERSON...it ends the influence of the George Soros and Koch brothers of the world and gives it to all the voters...
 
The fact that the GOP has not done a single thing since 2010 that a great majority of Americans approve of, is a red herring in a discussion of possible election results?

That is certainly a unique reality you've got going there.

as i said, it's irrelevant to my argument.

if you want someone to come in here and trumpet the GOP.. go find a Republican... i'm sure they will entertain your wishes.

I'm a Libertarian, i'll trumpet the Libertarian Party, not any other party.. if that's ok with you.
 
Thats exactly what im saying....you cant stop people from giving money to them...we have to make it so everyone can spend the same amount.

Every candidate gets the same amount of airtime...they get the same amount to spend on ads etc...all taxpayer funded...may the best person win...NOT THE RICHEST PERSON...it ends the influence of the George Soros and Koch brothers of the world and gives it to all the voters...

ok.. me and you see eye to eye then... good to know.

as an additional measure, i'd also mandate that any "extra" contributions in a candidate coffers at election time would go directly to the general fund.... which oughta give people/corps/unions pause when they go to donate.. knowing that their money might not go to a candidate directly;, but instead go right into the general account will hopefully mitigate jumping through legal hoops to get money into their favorite politicians hands.
of course, they might decide just to spend the money themselves on electioneering communications, but that's fine with me.. it's their right to do so.
 
I'm a Libertarian, i'll trumpet the Libertarian Party, not any other party.. if that's ok with you.

Hey, whatever floats your boat! Aren't Libertarians opposed to an election process that excludes them because of the private funding for the main parties?
 
Hey, whatever floats your boat! Aren't Libertarians opposed to an election process that excludes them because of the private funding for the main parties?

private funding of the main parties does not exclude us from the election process....we advocate for trusting people to fund who they want, with however much they want to give... to do otherwise would be against the stated principles of the party.

we oppose limits on free speech and we oppose our incumbency protection acts .. (better known as campaign finance reform act, McCain Fiengold)
we find that the citizens united decision, while certainly a step in the right direction, didn't go far enough in releasing the grip the major parties/incumbents have on our system.
 
private funding of the main parties does not exclude us from the election process....we advocate for trusting people to fund who they want, with however much they want to give... to do otherwise would be against the stated principles of the party.

we oppose limits on free speech and we oppose our incumbency protection acts .. (better known as campaign finance reform act, McCain Fiengold)
we find that the citizens united decision, while certainly a step in the right direction, didn't go far enough in releasing the grip the major parties/incumbents have on our system.

The Libertarian platform on campaign finance reform may help explain this:

Libertarian share of the votes in the 2008 presidential election - 0.4%
 
Thats exactly what im saying....you cant stop people from giving money to them...we have to make it so everyone can spend the same amount.

Every candidate gets the same amount of airtime...they get the same amount to spend on ads etc...all taxpayer funded...may the best person win...NOT THE RICHEST PERSON...it ends the influence of the George Soros and Koch brothers of the world and gives it to all the voters...

Freedom of speech means you can't decide that someone has too much speech.
 
how do you know we can't limit the politicians themselves?.. it's never been attempted by any congress... ever.

You mean limits on spending? Yes, that was tried, and overturned in the courts as a violation of free speech.
 
The Libertarian platform on campaign finance reform may help explain this:

Libertarian share of the votes in the 2008 presidential election - 0.4%

ooooh an appeal to popularity... that always works out well.
there was a time when most everybody believed the world was flat... do you feel the few that believed it was spherical were wrong?


had you ever taken the time to do your homework, you'd know that there is no Libertarian party platform concerning campaign finance reform....
why haven't you taken the time to inform yourself?
 
Why?

Who are you to say a candidate has said enough?
I'm Thrilla... glad to meetcha!

why, you ask..... well,because I don't have a problem with limiting the rights of government agents or government agents to-be.

admittedly,it's not a very consistent position of mine,taking my ideology into consideration, but it's one I hold nonetheless.
 
I'm Thrilla... glad to meetcha!

why, you ask..... well,because I don't have a problem with limiting the rights of government agents or government agents to-be.

Nice circular argument.

admittedly,it's not a very consistent position of mine,taking my ideology into consideration, but it's one I hold nonetheless.

Okay, an inconsistent and circular argument. ;)
 
An organization or a social entity in the way that you are talking about usually has one common goal directed at something specific, usually some sort of ideology or cause. Like La Raza, or anti-abortion/pro-choice or some such. In such cases everyone that is a part of those organizations agree on one basic principle. Why? Because each member of those types of organizations joined that organization for that specific purpose. As such it is logical that one or a few people speak for the whole.

Intentions are irrelevant to the 1st Amendment rights. Locate the provision in the Bill of Rights that exempts corporations or other organizations from freely expressing themselves using their own dollars because of specific intentions, or presumed misrepresentation. A employee is a member of a corporation. The corporation speaking on behalf of its own is not a guarantee of misrepresentation. The employees want the company to grow (ideally) so they can be rewarded (potentially). The corporation is not in the business of hurting itself, and its organizational interests and employee interests are one and the same. If members do not like the actions or speech of its company, they are free to leave. But again, the intentions and your allegations of misrepresentation are not relevant to the principle of free speech.

A corporation however has no such common goals. The ones that control the corporation does not ask Joe Blow that works in the mail department what ideas he may have or what politician he supports and no corporation requires any of thier employees to follow any specific credo. The only reason that people are a part of any corporation is to make money, not to be supporters or non-supporters to an ideaology.

Inevitably, the goal of the corporation in its endeavors to persuade elections is usually based on a goal of growth and prosperity (i.e. making money). It doesn't matter if the executives do or don't personally ask the individual employees of their opinions. And you have no proof that every time a company lobbies or spends money on an election, the workers are never involved or consulted.Often, unions are organizations of workers who spend their own money on elections or politicians, to persuade legislation and regulation in their favor. Do you have proof that the corporate executives are stealing money from workers in order to pay for these endeavors? If it is found to be true, it is absolutely wrong in those cases. But that's a totally different issue- theft. If it's not theft, then the executives have every right to spend the money left over (after paying out wages and overhead) to these kinds of pursuits. A group of executives, board members, and thousands of shareholders are groups of people. Logically, the corporation wouldn't lobby for anything too drastic, since major ethical abominations would influence shareholders to sell their stocks. CEOs and board members can be removed for making bad choices. And thousands of people are involved in these issues. Why restrict the entire organization's right to free speech?

A family is not a person, but that doesn't justify duct tape over the mouths of your wife and children.

As such comparing the two is like comparing a human to a rock.

My argument has to do with nothing more than equating the free speech rights of individuals with those of organizations. The exemptions you're referring to do not exist anywhere in the Bill of Rights.

Finally, all of this would be a non-issue if the federal government were to follow a minimalist structure. If you open government up to personal enterprise, you'll inevitably sell one person short in favor of another. You cannot simply stop at subsidizing green energy or bailing out auto manufacturers. Once government is open for business, the subsidies and preferential treatments are limitless. How can corporations spend billions on lobbying and electioneering if there are no handouts to give?
 
Last edited:
Freedom of speech means you can't decide that someone has too much speech.

Damn right, the more money you've got, the more speech you get.

Do people think speech is supposed to be free or something???
 
ooooh an appeal to popularity... that always works out well.
there was a time when most everybody believed the world was flat... do you feel the few that believed it was spherical were wrong?

There are still a few who think the world is flat.... do you feel we should go along with the few that still believe it is flat?

had you ever taken the time to do your homework, you'd know that there is no Libertarian party platform concerning campaign finance reform....
why haven't you taken the time to inform yourself?

I was just taking you at your word (see below). Was that a mistake???

private funding of the main parties does not exclude us from the election process....we advocate for trusting people to fund who they want, with however much they want to give... to do otherwise would be against the stated principles of the party.

we oppose limits on free speech and we oppose our incumbency protection acts .. (better known as campaign finance reform act, McCain Fiengold)
we find that the citizens united decision, while certainly a step in the right direction, didn't go far enough in releasing the grip the major parties/incumbents have on our system.
 
Damn right, the more money you've got, the more speech you get.

Do people think speech is supposed to be free or something???

So should we limit or ban spending on attorneys so nobody has "too much" representation by lawyers? That would be more fair after all.
 
Catawba is right. the current situation means that those few with the most money can speak over the majority.

Ripped-off-Britons-party--003.jpg
 
Catawba is right. the current situation means that those few with the most money can speak over the majority.

That's true about everything though. People with money can do lots of things easier than those without it. So what?

The little people can (and do) join their money together to magnify their voices (in non-human groups that still have free speech rights, btw).


This thread isn't really about donations to candidates.
 
The little people can (and do) join their money together to magnify their voices (in non-human groups that still have free speech rights, btw).

I'll call, please show us your math on how the majority who own a smaller percentage of the total wealth in the country can pool their money to equal more than they have???
 
Last edited:
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?

Yes because it would be a small step to solving the corporate corruption in this country and be a small step toward a country ran by the people and not corporations.

Corporate controlled Media with their biased agenda's is another issue
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom