View Poll Results: Would you vote for an Amendment like this?

Voters
40. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    20 50.00%
  • No.

    15 37.50%
  • Other.

    5 12.50%
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42

Thread: Another new amendment...how would you vote?

  1. #11
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,703

    Re: Another new amendment...how would you vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    I see what you are getting at, but it still irks the she-it out of me.
    what irks me is

    1) the media being mainly shills for Obama in the last two elections

    2) big time entertainment doing the same thing

    3) unions giving 90% of their money to Democrats

    and then telling groups like say the NRA or other anti leftwing groups that they shouldn't be able to counter those pro leftwing supporters.



  2. #12
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Another new amendment...how would you vote?

    A million is probably too low for a national campaign, but limits could certainly be set based on which office the election is for. Alternately, completely public funding of elections. I don't think a simple solution is going to do it, though. Campaign finance is a complex situation. Suppose an organization legitimately wanted to run issue ads, like over fracking? Suppose the PAC really wasn't coordinating with a candidate? We all know that they do, but what if they didn't? What if Colbert took his superPAC and supported a candidate he had never met?

    I would love to see a lot less money influencing elections, but those same rules shouldn't stop a concerned citizen from printing up pamphlets and distributing them.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  3. #13
    Sage
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    12,771

    Re: Another new amendment...how would you vote?

    If we don't get some serious campaign finance reform NOW, then we can kiss what's left of our representative democracy goodbye.
    "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." --Hillary Rodham Clinton
    "Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections." --Mitt Romney

  4. #14
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,703

    Re: Another new amendment...how would you vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    If we don't get some serious campaign finance reform NOW, then we can kiss what's left of our representative democracy goodbye.
    LOL-oh the Drama!

    get rid of the 17th Amendment and that will get rid of SOME of the problems as to the Senate. as to presidential elections-good luck. and as Paschendale correctly insinuated, free speech is at stake.



  5. #15
    Sage
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    12,771

    Re: Another new amendment...how would you vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    LOL-oh the Drama!

    get rid of the 17th Amendment and that will get rid of SOME of the problems as to the Senate. as to presidential elections-good luck. and as Paschendale correctly insinuated, free speech is at stake.
    I'm not making this up, Turtle. You think that the average congressperson listens to his or her constituents more than corporate lobbyists?

    Wal-Mart, Exxon, Lockheed-Martin, and the many other corporations have every right to ask their representatives and senators to vote as they want them to. But when that influence involves millions of dollars exchanged in secret, then we have a real problem.
    "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." --Hillary Rodham Clinton
    "Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections." --Mitt Romney

  6. #16
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,703

    Re: Another new amendment...how would you vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    I'm not making this up, Turtle. You think that the average congressperson listens to his or her constituents more than corporate lobbyists?

    Wal-Mart, Exxon, Lockheed-Martin, and the many other corporations have every right to ask their representatives and senators to vote as they want them to. But when that influence involves millions of dollars exchanged in secret, then we have a real problem.
    what I believe and what I think is that you can pass this silly amendment and NOTHING is going to change



  7. #17
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Another new amendment...how would you vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    This amendment would ban all super pacs and companies from donating to candidates and would only allow individuals to donate funds to a candidate that they support. The max funds that they can donate would be $1,000 per candidate that they support. In addition as a second clause/paragraph no candidate can spend more than $1 million dollars to campaign for their election, all of it must come from donations of individuals 18 and older.
    I like the idea and if it is a choice between this and nothing I'd choose this, but in all honesty I don't think it goes far enough. It doesn't prevent former campaign sponsors from spending directly. I think there needs to be a period leading up to an election during which such expenditures should be severely limited.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  8. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: Another new amendment...how would you vote?

    Completely against it. I'm not good with telling other people and companies how to spend their money.

    Dollars can only do so much. People still vote under their own volition, and you get the same number of votes as any member of the Walton family - one.

  9. #19
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Another new amendment...how would you vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    This amendment would ban all super pacs and companies from donating to candidates and would only allow individuals to donate funds to a candidate that they support. The max funds that they can donate would be $1,000 per candidate that they support. In addition as a second clause/paragraph no candidate can spend more than $1 million dollars to campaign for their election, all of it must come from donations of individuals 18 and older.
    I picked other. I posted a similar idea in another thread.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-con...elections.html

    Section 1.
    Donors will be limited to donating a $2,500 maximum per candidate in the district/precinct the donor is registered to vote in. No one will be allowed to donate to candidates outside their district/precincts.For example this means people in California can not donate to governor races in Alabama and people in New York City can not donate to mayoral elections in Tulsa.

    Section 2.Individuals may form groups and only donate to candidates in their district/precinct and those group members may not donate as a individual.For example you can donate to a can donate to candidate in your district either as a individual or a member of a group, but not both.

    a. Seeing how section 1 applies that means what a group can donate will be limited by the number of members in that district of that candidate and only donate to candidates what ever the group's members in that candidate's district willingly donated to that group.. If hypothetically there is five planned parenthood members in a city counselor candidate's district then the most amount Planned parent could donate to that candidate is $12,500 5x $2,500= $12,500 if all five members donated the max of $2,500.However if 2 only donated the max ,2 donate half the max and one did not donate then that means planned parenthood can only donate is $7,500 to that candidate.

    b.While a company/corporation is a group of persons it's members IE employees are not part of that group for a cause other than getting a paycheck.So employers and employees can not solicit or donate to each other.

    c.Any contributions to a group must be specially marked that they for donating to candidates in that member's voting district. People sometimes have a difference of opinion from the group they are part of.

    Section 3.Seeing how television stations/networks are privately owned entities they are banned from propping up one candidate over another.They must give equal positive and negative time to all candidates or non at all.All debates must include all candidates or no debates happen at all on TV. This means if candidate A appears on a popular talk show or tv show then so must candidates B,C,D, and and other candidates in that race.If a news outlet does a positive story on Candidate B then it must do a equally positive story on Candidates A,C,D, and other candidates. If a network does a negative story on Candidate C, then it must do a equally negative story on Candidates A,B,D, and other candidates.This also applies to tax payer funded networks since governments should never be in the business of propping up candidates.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  10. #20
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:25 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Another new amendment...how would you vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    This amendment would ban all super pacs and companies from donating to candidates and would only allow individuals to donate funds to a candidate that they support. The max funds that they can donate would be $1,000 per candidate that they support. In addition as a second clause/paragraph no candidate can spend more than $1 million dollars to campaign for their election, all of it must come from donations of individuals 18 and older.
    Amendments should not be used to solve transient problems. While I hate the influence of money in politics as much as any one, I think the repercussions from such an amendment would outweigh the benefits, especially as a precedent to what amendments should be used for.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •