View Poll Results: Would you support Campaign Reform to allow greater individual donations?

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

    14 46.67%
  • No

    16 53.33%
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 63

Thread: Would you support Campaign Finance Reform?

  1. #21
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Would you support Campaign Finance Reform?

    Quote Originally Posted by CalGun View Post
    Restrict the use of money to propel a speech and you restrict the speech. If the left had their way only a union could donate to a campaign and only their media would have unlimited abilities to get out a message. Then we wouldn't have a free country but something similar to an Iranian / Iraqi state.
    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.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  2. #22
    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: Would you support Campaign Finance Reform?

    Quote Originally Posted by ModerateGOP View Post
    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 think real campaign finance reform would not only limit the amount of money one may donate to a candidate but it would also limit the individual only to candidates in his or her district.

    I was thinking that if we really wanted to stop the influence of big money in elections then amending the Constitution is the only way to do it and this proposed amendment would be a step in the right direction.

    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 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

  3. #23
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,756

    Re: Would you support Campaign Finance Reform?

    Quote Originally Posted by ModerateGOP View Post
    While that sounds nice. It's never going to happen and you know this. However, a sane approach to fixing the problem is to allow individuals to donate more money. Some rich folks may not want their businesses attached to a politician, but they don't mind if their own money will be. Some middle class people may be able to pull more money together and help elect the person they want to win. This will also eliminate any such political corruption scandals because the politician himself will be held responsible for stealing the money the people gave to him specifically. If the politician decides to steal that money and use it for other non-campaign purposes, people will see right through that. It's just harder to tell because political organizations have messy books and it's unclear what is or isn't "political spending." There will be no need to set up super pacs or political organizations because money will be flowing directly to the politicians from the public.
    Of course it's not going to happen, the people we've put in charge, the only people that can actually make changes, are the ones that benefit from keeping things the way they are. We've put the monkeys in charge of the peanut machine and we wonder why they're taking all the peanuts.

    Until the American public says enough is enough and forces change, we'll keep going down the rabbit hole into political insanity.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  4. #24
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Gilbert, Arizona
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    403

    Re: Would you support Campaign Finance Reform?

    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.

  5. #25
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:54 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,399

    Re: Would you support Campaign Finance Reform?

    Quote Originally Posted by ModerateGOP View Post
    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.
    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).
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  6. #26
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Would you support Campaign Finance Reform?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Mittner View Post
    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
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  7. #27
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Gilbert, Arizona
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    403

    Re: Would you support Campaign Finance Reform?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    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.

  8. #28
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Would you support Campaign Finance Reform?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Mittner View Post
    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.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  9. #29
    Advisor Stoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Last Seen
    02-27-16 @ 11:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    449

    Re: Would you support Campaign Finance Reform?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    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...
    "If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner."
    H. L. Mencken

  10. #30
    Advisor Stoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Last Seen
    02-27-16 @ 11:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    449

    Re: Would you support Campaign Finance Reform?

    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.
    "If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner."
    H. L. Mencken

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •