• 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!

How much should corporations be allowed to contribute to political campaigns?

How much should corporations be allowed to contribute to political campaigns?

  • No limits. However much money they can manage.

    Votes: 9 25.0%
  • Up to 100 million dollars

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • up to 50 million dollars

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Up to 10 million dollars

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Up to 1 million dollars

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Up to 500K

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Up to 100K

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Up to 50K

    Votes: 1 2.8%
  • Up to $200

    Votes: 2 5.6%
  • NONE. All political campaigns should be grassroots with money ONLY from the people

    Votes: 24 66.7%

  • Total voters
    36

Luna Tick

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
2,148
Reaction score
867
Location
Nebraska
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
How much should corporations be allowed to contribute to political campaigns?
 
Aren't there already limits on this?

As in, a single entity can only contribute X amount?

I think it's a bit more than $200, and far less than the next one up.
 
It's NOT the government's money.

Any corporation should be able to spend as much of it's money as it wishes on just about anything.

And, yes, I support the repeal of all drug control laws, which, by the way, are unconstitutional.
 
Aren't there already limits on this?

As in, a single entity can only contribute X amount?

I think it's a bit more than $200, and far less than the next one up.

That was true until a few weeks ago.
 
Not a single thin dime. First and foremost, political contributions are not speech. Second, corporations are not people. If the people who own the corporation want to make contributions to political campaigns, they can donate their own money.
 
That was true until a few weeks ago.
What???

I think you are incorrect.

There are still limits on how much one entity can donate to a political campaign....which is not to say that those limits have not routinely been circumvented, broken, bypassed, ignored, and otherwise avoided since they were put in place
 
How much should corporations be allowed to contribute to political campaigns?
Any money towards campaigns is political prostitution, this prostitution exists because there is no democratic media and candidates have to rely on corporate media, therefor we have a bunch of whores in the government, nothing surprising. that is why I figured out a solution, but people are calling me a nutjob godsgovernment.org
 
Personally, I'd rather not allow anyone, corporations or individuals, to contribute anything directly to political candidates, it makes it too easy to buy votes, especially from a corporate standpoint. I'd much rather see people supporting the political system, not individual candidates.
 
Personally, I'd rather not allow anyone, corporations or individuals, to contribute anything directly to political candidates, it makes it too easy to buy votes, especially from a corporate standpoint. I'd much rather see people supporting the political system, not individual candidates.
But then all the power that comes with contributing political funding is placed in the hands of the people who decide who, what where and how it is allocated.

And takes it away from the voters who donate these days.

I agree that some reformation of the laws governing campaigns is needed.

But removing control of their own money in regards to which candidate it goes to is a bad idea, IMO.
 
But then all the power that comes with contributing political funding is placed in the hands of the people who decide who, what where and how it is allocated.

And takes it away from the voters who donate these days.

I agree that some reformation of the laws governing campaigns is needed.

But removing control of their own money in regards to which candidate it goes to is a bad idea, IMO.

I'm all in favor of creating a central pool where *ANY* contributions go. On a certain date, anyone who is legally registered to run gets an equal cut of the take. I want to see equality in funding so that it's the ISSUES, not the money that decides elections.

Not that we'll ever see that.
 
I'm all in favor of creating a central pool where *ANY* contributions go. On a certain date, anyone who is legally registered to run gets an equal cut of the take. I want to see equality in funding so that it's the ISSUES, not the money that decides elections.

Not that we'll ever see that.
That could work, if it could be implemented.

But I don’t think people would contribute as much, or at all, if they don’t know it is going to a candidate that they support. As a result, any such pool would start shrinking, and then we might get a “campaign tax”.

Personally, I would much rather money be removed entirely from politics. But how, I have no idea.
 
That could work, if it could be implemented.

But I don’t think people would contribute as much, or at all, if they don’t know it is going to a candidate that they support. As a result, any such pool would start shrinking, and then we might get a “campaign tax”.

Personally, I would much rather money be removed entirely from politics. But how, I have no idea.
Anyone that wanted to run could enter a lottery and the winners could be select by random drawings. ;)

.
 
Anyone that wanted to run could enter a lottery and the winners could be select by random drawings. ;)
That might work in the campaign, but no one would go for it, as you would really have no say in which leaders were chosen.

However, it wouldn't address the control over monetary power that politicians in office have. And their ability to benefit from that control.
 
As long as corporations can benefit via kickbacks by spending money, money will be spent to affect policy/elections, regardless of the law, one way or another.

The problem is that we have given policy makers in washington the ability the pull so many strings in the private sector in the 1st place.
 
There is nothing in the constitution that properly allows the federal government to limit contributions so the only legitimate answer is NO LIMIT
 
How much should corporations be allowed to contribute to political campaigns?

I think they should be allowed to buy all the commercials/ads they want for a politician as long as it is stated who paid for the ad/commercial, but directly giving to politicians should be seen as nothing more than a bribe. I believe free speech means you can speak ill or speak great about a political candidate just as long as it is not slander.Speech is the articulation of words that are either spoken,written, or sign language. So a ad on tv meets that definition,directly giving money however does not.
 
....Companies buying contracts via campaign contributions is related to "free speech"? Since when?
 
That might work in the campaign, but no one would go for it, as you would really have no say in which leaders were chosen.
Do you think good leaders are being chosen now? :shock:

However, it wouldn't address the control over monetary power that politicians in office have. And their ability to benefit from that control.
Have two lottery drawings per week. Those chosen would only serve three or four days.

Who is going to spend much money to influence someone that would be out of office in three days? ... See how easy this is? ;)

.
 
That could work, if it could be implemented.

But I don’t think people would contribute as much, or at all, if they don’t know it is going to a candidate that they support. As a result, any such pool would start shrinking, and then we might get a “campaign tax”.

Personally, I would much rather money be removed entirely from politics. But how, I have no idea.

We need serious campaign reform which takes the millions of dollars out of the equation and makes people run on credible platforms instead of how much money they can pump into mindless advertising that puts them in front of people's eyes. There are ways to make it workable, but like you said, getting it implemented is difficult. Unfortunately, the people who benefit from the system being the way it is right now are the only ones who could change the system and I don't see much hope in that.
 
Anyone that wanted to run could enter a lottery and the winners could be select by random drawings. ;)

.

I've had that idea before, but I'd require the applicants to meet requirements such as citizenship, education, lack of criminal record, personal stability as measured by financial score and employment history.

Don't want any flakes who hold a job for less than two years deciding he wants to move to the White House, do we?
 
There is nothing in the constitution that properly allows the federal government to limit contributions so the only legitimate answer is NO LIMIT

If enough popular support can be drummed up (and it would take a LOT to get past corporate bribery), the constitution can be amended to fix this problem. However the practical chances of it happening approach 0.
 
If enough popular support can be drummed up (and it would take a LOT to get past corporate bribery), the constitution can be amended to fix this problem. However the practical chances of it happening approach 0.

Line Item Veto would be more practical and certainly less destructive to the principles of freedom this country was founded on.
 
Back
Top Bottom