• 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 Campaign Finance Reform?

Would you support Campaign Reform to allow greater individual donations?


  • Total voters
    25
Absolutely not.

The only serious campaign finance reform I would support is one that puts all donations into a collective pool to be paid out equally to all eligible candidates. That's the only way to even the playing field between the major and any third parties. It also helps ensure politicians remain loyal to the voters and not those promising large campaign donations.

They'll find other ways to influence candidates
 
They'll find other ways to influence candidates

And then we should address that.

People will always find ways to exploit systems for personal benefit. It's a constantly moving target. What's important is that we, the people, don't fall too far behind in keeping them in check. It's part of that "eternal vigilance" thing.
 
And then we should address that.

People will always find ways to exploit systems for personal benefit. It's a constantly moving target. What's important is that we, the people, don't fall too far behind in keeping them in check. It's part of that "eternal vigilance" thing.
But to avoid falling behind we have to:
  • Know what they're up to
  • Care.
 
You can never level the playing field, not when corporations can pay millions of dollars to buy politicians. The only way to fix the problem is to eliminate the money. If we stop allowing anyone, corporations and citizens alike, to pay money directly into a politician's coffers, if we stop them from taking *ANY* money from *ANYONE*, then there is no undue influence from special interests.

There is a way, take away the reason corporations give money to politicians, take away the politicians ability to make or influence legislation that favors that corporation. As examples take away the ability of congress to pass laws that affect one business differently than another as in requiring the use of ethanol (corn alcohol) in gasoline that probably doesn't do what it was intended to do anyway, milk subsidies, farm subsidies in general, subsidies for energy...
 
Adding to my previous post: Our knee jerk reaction to every problem seems to be to pass more laws when in fact the laws we have may be the problem. All these laws, all these regulations that we can't keep track of are what enables crony capitalism and what we consider as campaign contributor problems.
 
I have no issue with disclosure. It's just that people who want something for nothing from our government want limits / restrictions on people with wealth. They have no issue with discriminating against someone who doesn't agree with them by limiting that individuals ability to put out their message.

In our technology era the ability for immediate disclosure is at hand and should be clear and required.

Which is why restrictions will never work.

If we can't limit campaign funding, we need to require disclosure.

Absolute, complete, and before the campaign ends.

If you can't show where some money came from, it should raise red flags and the like.
 
Not more than we currently have. People have always found a way to funnel the money. Likewise banning contributions seems to be pointlessly utopian.
 
  1. Can't vote, can't contribute. IOW, only beings that can enter a voting booth and legally vote can contribute. That means no corporations, no foreign nationals, no PACs or committees, no out-of-state American citizens in state elections, and so on.
  2. ALL contributions must be made public within 48 hours.
  3. No contributions within 5 days prior to the election.
  4. All political ads must have a person's name that is qualified to contribute per above behind it.
  5. All left over contributions would be pro-rated and returned to the contributors after the election, which means there would be no phantom contributions and all campaigns would start from scratch (equal footing).


I really like this idea. Except can you explain number four a little bit more. I don't don't really get it. Since all political ads these days have the politician themselves endorsing it, or the organizations name somewhere on it.
 
Not more than we currently have. People have always found a way to funnel the money. Likewise banning contributions seems to be pointlessly utopian.

Are you replying to what I said? Because I never mentioned banning contributions. In fact, I explained, I don't want to ban contributions, I want to allow more contributions from individuals and thereby in the process it would overtime erase the middle man (organizations and corporations).
 
I always thought the campaign finance laws were ridiculous.

Scenario 1: An individual likes everything one politician stands for and wants to help him/her get into the White House by donating some money. It doesn't matter the dollar amount. At least in a society that claims it is supposed to be for the people by the people, this shouldn't even be restricted as it is.

Scenario 2: Banks, Corporations, Unions, and other populist public interest groups, can donate to the campaigns and political organizations this politician belongs to. Never directly to the individual themselves.

Conclusion: Isn't it the same thing? and should it just be reformed to reflect scenario one instead of scenario two. So that the 1% can stop hiding behind the cloak of fundraising. So that we as a public can see where each individual truly has allegiances to? I'm not saying that this will automatically happen if individuals were allowed to donate to specific candidates but I think it just makes more sense then setting up small shell organizations to funnel money to friends of politicians who can easily allow them to take whatever the heck they wanted out of said fund. Sure, it's illegal but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen under some of these umbrellas. EX: Bob McDonnel/Ron Paul.

PS: I don't think corporations should be excluded from campaigns anymore than populist groups. I just think individuals shouldn't be excluded either.

To me it's one of the most common over-looked problems in DC and number one cause of polarization.

I don't think there should be contribution limits or disclosure requirements.
 
I really like this idea. Except can you explain number four a little bit more. I don't don't really get it. Since all political ads these days have the politician themselves endorsing it, or the organizations name somewhere on it.
Thanks.

#4: Instead of something like "Citizens for Fair Campaigns" at the end of a negative attack ad, which doesn't tell us anything, require that a person's real name stand up for it. If John Smith is financing Citizens for Fair Campaigns, then put John Smith's name on it.

I know it's not perfect, and there would be attempts around the intent, but I think it'd be a step in the right direction.
 
I always thought the campaign finance laws were ridiculous.

Scenario 1: An individual likes everything one politician stands for and wants to help him/her get into the White House by donating some money. It doesn't matter the dollar amount. At least in a society that claims it is supposed to be for the people by the people, this shouldn't even be restricted as it is.

Scenario 2: Banks, Corporations, Unions, and other populist public interest groups, can donate to the campaigns and political organizations this politician belongs to. Never directly to the individual themselves.

Conclusion: Isn't it the same thing? and should it just be reformed to reflect scenario one instead of scenario two. So that the 1% can stop hiding behind the cloak of fundraising. So that we as a public can see where each individual truly has allegiances to? I'm not saying that this will automatically happen if individuals were allowed to donate to specific candidates but I think it just makes more sense then setting up small shell organizations to funnel money to friends of politicians who can easily allow them to take whatever the heck they wanted out of said fund. Sure, it's illegal but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen under some of these umbrellas. EX: Bob McDonnel/Ron Paul.

PS: I don't think corporations should be excluded from campaigns anymore than populist groups. I just think individuals shouldn't be excluded either.

To me it's one of the most common over-looked problems in DC and number one cause of polarization.

While i understand what you are getting at right now, in order to do this reform you would have to literally deny a person to give to charity. People donating money to political organizations and those political organizations distributing it to their members so that they can get elected is completely legal an a backbone of our political society.
 
Thanks.

#4: Instead of something like "Citizens for Fair Campaigns" at the end of a negative attack ad, which doesn't tell us anything, require that a person's real name stand up for it. If John Smith is financing Citizens for Fair Campaigns, then put John Smith's name on it.

I know it's not perfect, and there would be attempts around the intent, but I think it'd be a step in the right direction.

I get your point now. However, I believe most ads have this these days. Although come to think of it the RNC and DNC ads plus PETA ads and various PSA don't tell you who is supporting it. It is just a platform that people use to raise money and then no one knows where said money goes. EX: Red Cross/Haiti fiasco.
 
While i understand what you are getting at right now, in order to do this reform you would have to literally deny a person to give to charity. People donating money to political organizations and those political organizations distributing it to their members so that they can get elected is completely legal an a backbone of our political society.

Crap! As I work for a charity I would not want that to happen. I'll have to refine this a bit then but I do believe I never restricted anyone from giving to charities. I can see where the line of non-profit, charity and political organization can be blurred. And the sleazy politicians using this loophole as well. Maybe people who donate to charity should also be public knowledge but sometimes that's harder to track since Churches are linked to charities and they don't release said info due to being a private institution. and who would honestly care if I give $20 to my church every week?
 
I don't think there should be contribution limits or disclosure requirements.

I don't really understand that. Campaign contributions are a form of legalized bribery of elected officials. As far as I'm concerned, we have the right and the obligation to limit the amount of the bribes and to disclose the person offering the bribe (over some de minimis amount - a few $100 or so), in real time. It seems self evident that if Joe Corn Farmer and all his corn farmer friends give the maximum to Sen. Kansas, and then Kansas votes for increasing corn subsidies, that we should be able to draw a line between the bribe (and it is a bribe) and the vote.

And I don't really understand why we allow transnational corporations with operations and owners all over the globe to contribute to U.S. elections. Those businesses have no allegiance to the U.S. and quite frankly are agnostic about how any policy will affect citizens OF the U.S. If it benefits them to move a plant overseas and hollow out a town, they'll do it without a second thought. We might as well allow Chinese banks to contribute or Saudi oil companies or Russian natural gas companies. I have no problems with U.S. citizens who are employees of those companies contributing like the rest of us, but I see no reason to allow corporate treasury to be used as the funding source.

And we hear "Money = speech" or "if you limit the money then you must by definition limit speech" and those are true enough. But what that accepts as a NECESSARY evil is a $billionaire has roughly a $billion times the "speech" of a poor person. I just don't believe that was the kind of world the founders intended. If they'd wanted an oligarchy/plutocracy, they could have written an oligarchy into the Constitution.
 
I don't really understand that. Campaign contributions are a form of legalized bribery of elected officials. As far as I'm concerned, we have the right and the obligation to limit the amount of the bribes and to disclose the person offering the bribe (over some de minimis amount - a few $100 or so), in real time. It seems self evident that if Joe Corn Farmer and all his corn farmer friends give the maximum to Sen. Kansas, and then Kansas votes for increasing corn subsidies, that we should be able to draw a line between the bribe (and it is a bribe) and the vote.

And I don't really understand why we allow transnational corporations with operations and owners all over the globe to contribute to U.S. elections. Those businesses have no allegiance to the U.S. and quite frankly are agnostic about how any policy will affect citizens OF the U.S. If it benefits them to move a plant overseas and hollow out a town, they'll do it without a second thought. We might as well allow Chinese banks to contribute or Saudi oil companies or Russian natural gas companies. I have no problems with U.S. citizens who are employees of those companies contributing like the rest of us, but I see no reason to allow corporate treasury to be used as the funding source.

And we hear "Money = speech" or "if you limit the money then you must by definition limit speech" and those are true enough. But what that accepts as a NECESSARY evil is a $billionaire has roughly a $billion times the "speech" of a poor person. I just don't believe that was the kind of world the founders intended. If they'd wanted an oligarchy/plutocracy, they could have written an oligarchy into the Constitution.

There is risk in any system. I prefer the risk of money to the risk of state-rationed political speech.
 
There is risk in any system. I prefer the risk of money to the risk of state-rationed political speech.

Except there really is no limit on speech. Jamie Dimon has 100 different outlets. Can travel and meet with officials. Call up and get an audience with reporters on TV and print. Write editorials. Assemble meetings and rallies. Etc.

In other words I don't see his or JPM's inability to spend $100 million on ads as any bigger restraint on actual speech than my inability to because I'm relatively poor. And I have effectively no ready outlets ready to hear my views.
 
Except there really is no limit on speech. Jamie Dimon has 100 different outlets. Can travel and meet with officials. Call up and get an audience with reporters on TV and print. Write editorials. Assemble meetings and rallies. Etc.

In other words I don't see his or JPM's inability to spend $100 million on ads as any bigger restraint on actual speech than my inability to because I'm relatively poor. And I have effectively no ready outlets ready to hear my views.

Limits on money put the state in position to ration political speech.
 
Limits on money put the state in position to ration political speech.

Sure, but do you really want a country where the billionaires dominate political speech and drown out the voices of the other 99.99% of the country? And why in the world should that bribery/extortion be allowed to happen in secret?

I guess I don't see non-rationing as a worthwhile goal, not when it comes to "political speech" which by that we mean the ability to flood the airways with ads. it's a trade off for sure, but the harm in 'rationing' the speech of a billionaire with no limits on what he can say or write, and with 100 different options to make his or her opinion known, is slight, and the harm in allowing a small number of plutocrats to control the entire political message potentially destructive to the very idea of a representative republic, and one man one vote.
 
OP should have included "to support greater donations" in the question itself.

I voted "yes" meaning I would support reform.

That goddam well does not mean I want to allow larger donations and more money: I WANT SMALLER DONATIONS AND LESS MONEY.

Could a moderator kindly change my vote from "yes" to "no"?- Thank you.
 
I think as long as every contribution is immediately reported to a searchable database, I would be ok. As an added kicker, the candidate has to wear a badge that has the name of the individual/organization who has contributed the most.

Make them dress like a NASCAR racer would be amusing but probably a bit much.
 
Sure, but do you really want a country where the billionaires dominate political speech and drown out the voices of the other 99.99% of the country? And why in the world should that bribery/extortion be allowed to happen in secret?

I guess I don't see non-rationing as a worthwhile goal, not when it comes to "political speech" which by that we mean the ability to flood the airways with ads. it's a trade off for sure, but the harm in 'rationing' the speech of a billionaire with no limits on what he can say or write, and with 100 different options to make his or her opinion known, is slight, and the harm in allowing a small number of plutocrats to control the entire political message potentially destructive to the very idea of a representative republic, and one man one vote.

Real political extremism
Democratic senators tried to limit freedom of speech.

Forty-eight members of the Democratic caucus attempted to do something never previously done: Amend the Bill of Rights. They tried to radically shrink First Amendment protection of political speech. They evidently think extremism in defense of the political class’s convenience is no vice.


The First Amendment, as the First Congress passed it and the states ratified it more than 200 years ago, says: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” The 48 senators understand that this is incompatible — by its plain text, and in light of numerous Supreme Court rulings — with their desire to empower Congress and state legislatures to determine the permissible quantity, content and timing of political speech. Including, of course, speech by and about members of Congress and their challengers — as well as people seeking the presidency or state offices.
 
I don't really understand that. Campaign contributions are a form of legalized bribery of elected officials. As far as I'm concerned, we have the right and the obligation to limit the amount of the bribes and to disclose the person offering the bribe (over some de minimis amount - a few $100 or so), in real time. It seems self evident that if Joe Corn Farmer and all his corn farmer friends give the maximum to Sen. Kansas, and then Kansas votes for increasing corn subsidies, that we should be able to draw a line between the bribe (and it is a bribe) and the vote.

And I don't really understand why we allow transnational corporations with operations and owners all over the globe to contribute to U.S. elections. Those businesses have no allegiance to the U.S. and quite frankly are agnostic about how any policy will affect citizens OF the U.S. If it benefits them to move a plant overseas and hollow out a town, they'll do it without a second thought. We might as well allow Chinese banks to contribute or Saudi oil companies or Russian natural gas companies. I have no problems with U.S. citizens who are employees of those companies contributing like the rest of us, but I see no reason to allow corporate treasury to be used as the funding source.

And we hear "Money = speech" or "if you limit the money then you must by definition limit speech" and those are true enough. But what that accepts as a NECESSARY evil is a $billionaire has roughly a $billion times the "speech" of a poor person. I just don't believe that was the kind of world the founders intended. If they'd wanted an oligarchy/plutocracy, they could have written an oligarchy into the Constitution.

I may sound a little naive right now but what about when people just simply agree with a politicians ideals? is it a crime to support someone with whom you agree with? your saying a few hundred max per person but it can take thousands to get an advertisement on television, not to mention reserving spots to hold announcements, travel fair, renting out buildings a campaign headquarters and even just local branches for the campaign. President Obama spent over a billion in his presidential campaign alone, Romney just short of a billion on his failed campaign. i mean you would need thousands and thousands of people donating the max amount to reach half of that and you expect that to fund campaigns? Are you trying to make congress singularly old rich white guys or maybe snotty trust-fund millionaire kids? cause i don't know about you (and if you have reached this success level congratulations , you should legitimately be proud cause i respect the people who have gotten there) but im middle class and i don't have nearly enough money to fund a political campaign, let alone one that has a bare minimum of 50% chance of failing.

No, like i said in an earlier post, I understand where you are going for, im not naive enough to think all politicians are perfect and don't take bribes, but to restrain funding to political campaigns is the equivalent of denying a person the right to give to charity. No, what we need to do is have a constant surveillance on monetary movement to and from politicians, along with a separate, non-partisan comity specifically looking into any claims or possibility of bribes based off of both the first comity findings and and reports brought forward. This might sound like more people to get bribed but some barrier is better than none, i will agree with that at least.
 
I may sound a little naive right now but what about when people just simply agree with a politicians ideals? is it a crime to support someone with whom you agree with? your saying a few hundred max per person but it can take thousands to get an advertisement on television, not to mention reserving spots to hold announcements, travel fair, renting out buildings a campaign headquarters and even just local branches for the campaign. President Obama spent over a billion in his presidential campaign alone, Romney just short of a billion on his failed campaign. i mean you would need thousands and thousands of people donating the max amount to reach half of that and you expect that to fund campaigns? Are you trying to make congress singularly old rich white guys or maybe snotty trust-fund millionaire kids? cause i don't know about you (and if you have reached this success level congratulations , you should legitimately be proud cause i respect the people who have gotten there) but im middle class and i don't have nearly enough money to fund a political campaign, let alone one that has a bare minimum of 50% chance of failing.

No, like i said in an earlier post, I understand where you are going for, im not naive enough to think all politicians are perfect and don't take bribes, but to restrain funding to political campaigns is the equivalent of denying a person the right to give to charity. No, what we need to do is have a constant surveillance on monetary movement to and from politicians, along with a separate, non-partisan comity specifically looking into any claims or possibility of bribes based off of both the first comity findings and and reports brought forward. This might sound like more people to get bribed but some barrier is better than none, i will agree with that at least.
In earlier posts I advocate "can't vote, can't contribute", and immediate and full open disclosure. What I didn't mention was that I would place no limits on the amount. As long as it's a person who is eligible to vote on on the candidate/issue, and there is immediate public disclosure, then like you say, there should be no limit for the person who believes in (or against, as the case may be) a candidate/issue.
 
I voted no and here's why. I think campaign finance reform is and would be a sham. I would however support a constitutional amendment for term-limits.
 
Back
Top Bottom