View Poll Results: Do you approve of the increase in maximum campaign contributions to political parties

28. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, the limits should be raised or even eliminated

    9 32.14%
  • No, the limit should not have been raised

    13 46.43%
  • Yes, but I don't like it done secretly

    0 0%
  • No, but I don't like it done secretly

    7 25.00%
  • Yes, and it was like done in the right manner.

    1 3.57%
  • No, but it was done in a correct manner

    0 0%
  • IDK/Other

    4 14.29%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12

Thread: Do you support the campaign contribution limit increase?

  1. #11
    annata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    beneath the bodi tree
    Last Seen
    06-08-16 @ 12:03 PM

    Re: Do you support the campaign contribution limit increase?

    I did read we are no longer subsidizing National Conventions - which is fantastic.
    Both for monetary and policy consdierations, the taxpayers should not be paying for partisan politics.

    I'm fine with it - SCOTUS reads limiting money is limiting political speech ( most protected speech) -
    and any limitations are easily maneuvered around. So on balance -go for it.

  2. #12
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:18 AM
    Slightly Conservative

    Re: Do you support the campaign contribution limit increase?

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Multiple choice, public vote poll

    As the media devoted all its attention on the Ferguson and NYC police incidents, Congress quietly passed a $1.1 trillion dollar budget extension without dispute. USUALLY, these budget extensions are huge political, partisan and heavy media coverage fights.

    For how fast and silently it passed, for the last couple days I wondered what the two political parties had snuck by during what was essentially a news blackout about the government. Now we know.

    The two political parties agreed to raise the amount of political money rich people can give to the political parties by a lot.

    Campaign finance watchdog groups Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center and Common Cause, flagged the provision about an hour after the appropriations bill was released.“This makes the Great Train Robbery look like a petty misdemeanor,” said Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer. “These provisions have never been considered by the House or Senate, and were never even publicly mentioned before today.”
    While national party committees have a contribution limit of $32,400 per year for each donor, the three new accounts would have their own separate, higher contribution limits — up to $97,200 each per year. A political party's two congressional campaign committees that raise money for House and Senate candidates would also have two of those three accounts at their donors' disposal.
    In effect, that means that an individual could give up to $648,000 to the Republican National Committee or the Democratic National Committee during each two-year election cycle, and the House and Senate committees for each party could each collect $453,600 from one donor.
    A wealthy political contributor could therefore give a total of more than $1.55 million to a national party through its three committees.
    Parties cut deal to open spigot of campaign cash | TheHill

    So in a 2 year cycle a husband and wife team can contribute over $3,000,000 - and for a 4 year presidential cycle over $6 million dollars.

    We learned last week that an ambassadorship sells for only about $500,000. So $6,000,000 will buy a lot.

    Of course, this massively protects incumbents who tote the party line and is a massive hurdle for anyone running for Congress - or re-election - that doesn't. We now know the reaction of Congress to the midterms in which incumbents were actually defeated. To make their political parties for-sale and force any candidate - incumbent or not - to do exactly as their political party dictates. The Republicans and Democratic politicians did reach a deal. A massive increase in money for their re-elections.
    Something that makes it that much harder for your average Joe to run for office. I say no.I could care less if was done in secrete or out in the open.
    "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

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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