• 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

NeverTrump

Exposing GOP since 2015
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
25,357
Reaction score
11,557
Location
Post-Trump America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
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.
 
Last edited:
Money is like water, it always finds it ways to its destination. That is why campaign finance laws will never work, they can't be enforced. I do favor mandatory disclosure of the major funders of broadcast campaign advertising, during the ad and on a website.

I advocate requiring that broadcast licensees air debates with all eligible candidates and candidate statements several times, including during prime time. That will allow the lesser funded candidates to get exposure, somewhat leveling the playing field.
 
Depends what's behind the words.
 
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.

I'm on board, however I believe all donations should be fully disclosed. Even corporate / activist groups should provide disclosure of donors and decision makers that provide the funds and the origin of those dollars. Bottom line some individual name must be attached to the donation.
 
1.Money is like water, it always finds it ways to its destination. That is why campaign finance laws will never work, they can't be enforced. I do favor mandatory disclosure of the major funders of broadcast campaign advertising, during the ad and on a website.

2. I advocate requiring that broadcast licensees air debates with all eligible candidates and candidate statements several times, including during prime time. That will allow the lesser funded candidates to get exposure, somewhat leveling the playing field.

1. It just makes politics that much more corrupt when it isn't necessary. If scenario one existed, and politicians used money donated directly by people and used those funds to go on a shopping spree and fancy vacations, then it would be much more transparent. People would find out about it much more quickly and they would know not to donate to that person ever again. They would learn who is truly corrupt and who is not. If the politician in question plays with the public's money there would be quick backfire. Since it's much easier to target an individual's spending habits and lifestyle than an organization's or a corporation's.

2. I'm leaving that to the internal politics of each political party. For the most part the media does a very good job of this. Almost too much of it, muddying it and scaring off the general public. I'll say there needs to be less political debates, but I'm happy with the politics on media during elections. It's all good fun until someone loses. Then the conspiracy theories start.
 
I'm on board, however I believe all donations should be fully disclosed. Even corporate / activist groups should provide disclosure of donors and decision makers that provide the funds and the origin of those dollars. Bottom line some individual name must be attached to the donation.

Agreed. People equally need to know about corporate and activist activities. Sure you may like the corporations that donate to a politicians but most people aren't aware of what the politician does with their spare time unless they want to promote said group. EG activists
 
To allow greater contributions? Hell no. Too many politicians are bought and paid for right now. In fact, I'd support campaign reform to entirely eliminate any and all financial support to candidates, period. Nobody, anywhere, ever, can give any money directly to any candidate for any office. Politicians are supposed to work for all of us, not the ones who write them big fat checks.
 
We have WAY too much private money in elections. The solution isn't more money, it's less. Far far less.
 
To allow greater contributions? Hell no. Too many politicians are bought and paid for right now. In fact, I'd support campaign reform to entirely eliminate any and all financial support to candidates, period. Nobody, anywhere, ever, can give any money directly to any candidate for any office. Politicians are supposed to work for all of us, not the ones who write them big fat checks.

The way I see it is a bit different. If they are already bought and paid for anyway, then no amount of law is going to make them stop. So why not allow for more individual donations to somewhat level the playing field? Ever wonder why populist groups are most vocal around elections? Or how come attack ads against corporations come at exactly election time, but hardly any other time otherwise? If individuals were allowed to donate more maybe, these groups would actually lose funding and public awareness about the politicians' friends would increase. It's a step in the right direction to your ultimatum. Ban all money from campaigns cannot be accomplished without this task. Just the same way as you cannot ban all lobbyists without lawyers (who are friends w/lobbyists)
 
The problem is not solely money, in the end.
Money is simply the easiest way to transfer power from one human or group of humans to another.

The problem is humans. We're prone to corruption, it seems.
If put in a position of power, we seem to become corrupted by it.

Either this is due to the type of human who goes into politics, which indicates that key flaws exist in the current system...
Or this is due to humans in general, which also indicates a flaw in the system, but one that will require different repair methods...


Personally I don't ****ing know how to make this **** work better, I just know that, damnit, it ain't working correctly right now.
 
Why not simply use a VOTE as your means of voice?
 
Why not simply use a VOTE as your means of voice?
I do.

But I get the feeling, mistaken or not, that I'm drowned out by people with more money who can pay for ads which may or may not be factually correct, and almost surely spin things to support their candidate.

No political ads, that's the ticket...:lol:
 
I do.

But I get the feeling, mistaken or not, that I'm drowned out by people with more money who can pay for ads which may or may not be factually correct, and almost surely spin things to support their candidate.

No political ads, that's the ticket...:lol:

Impossible.

Publicaly funded campaigns.

THAT'S the ticket. Equal money for all who apply for the job.
 
Wow...so only those you agree with?

Restricting what people can spend on the political process is like being a mullah in Iran. It goes against the very fiber of being FREE.


Depends what's behind the words.
 
The way I see it is a bit different. If they are already bought and paid for anyway, then no amount of law is going to make them stop. So why not allow for more individual donations to somewhat level the playing field? Ever wonder why populist groups are most vocal around elections? Or how come attack ads against corporations come at exactly election time, but hardly any other time otherwise? If individuals were allowed to donate more maybe, these groups would actually lose funding and public awareness about the politicians' friends would increase. It's a step in the right direction to your ultimatum. Ban all money from campaigns cannot be accomplished without this task. Just the same way as you cannot ban all lobbyists without lawyers (who are friends w/lobbyists)

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.
 
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.

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.
 
How about we just get money out of the picture period? Deny all donations period. Require networks to give equal airtime to all those running for X office. No ads allowed. In this day and age no one needs to travel to be heard. Have a simple Q&A website set up, paid for by taxpayer money, in which people may ask a question and be answered by X politician that is running. One website for POTUS, one website set up for the Senate, one website setup for Congress, one website setup for state positions, one website set up for local positions. These websites can be changed to reflect the times and situations that occur. Make it kind of like a forum that people may join. People may post a question and then no one else may post in that thread with the exception of those that are running for X position.

Just a suggestion. I'm sure that there will be those against it due to the complications of such a setup and the cost to the taxpayers. But this along with requiring full disclosure of the politicians finances throughout their entire life it should stop much of the corruption caused by money. Also nothing is ever perfect. There will always be some loophole. We just have to actually close them as we become aware of them.
 
Start by having Congress pass the DISCLOSE Act and voting any of them out who oppose it.
 
Wow...so only those you agree with?

Restricting what people can spend on the political process is like being a mullah in Iran. It goes against the very fiber of being FREE.
You misunderstand.

It depends what's behind the words of whatever law/rule is made to address issues in campaign finance.

For example if the words say one thing, but leave loopholes that allow the opposite.
 
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.

You misunderstand.

It depends what's behind the words of whatever law/rule is made to address issues in campaign finance.

For example if the words say one thing, but leave loopholes that allow the opposite.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
Back
Top Bottom