• 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!

California Issues $15M Campaign Reporting Fine To Koch Brothers-Connected Groups

Meanwhile, conservatives rage about Obama's appointment of a major donor...
 
Fisher said:
Thank you, but providing a copy of the law does not answer the question of if unions are in compliance every time they make a donation, and if not, is this selective enforcement.
Click to expand...

Voters soundly rejected Proposition 32 by a margin of 56 percent to 44 percent, with about 95 percent of precincts reporting this morning.
Political observers in the state widely viewed Proposition 32 as the most restrictive measure in the country targeting unions’ ability to influence politics. If enacted, the measure would have banned unions and corporations from using payroll deductions to collect any money for political purposes.

"This was never about campaign finance reform," said Steve Smith, communications director for the California Labor Federation. "It was about hurting working people and silencing unions."

Similar laws in Idaho, Michigan, Utah, Washington and Wyoming already restrict unions. But Proposition 32 would have taken another step by not allowing members to opt in for payroll deductions for campaign contributions. Instead, labor groups would have needed to establish entirely new mechanisms for raising money, such as contributions via credit cards.
Click to expand...
California Unions Help Defeat Ballot Measure Targeting Campaign Donations
Unions get special treatment.
 
head of joaquin said:
Waaaaaaaaaaaa, working people are so pampered in our society! We need to hurt them some way, pronto.
Click to expand...
Unions aren't working people. They are thugs that abuse working people for the gain of the union bosses and their political masters.
 
Fisher said:
Thank you, but providing a copy of the law does not answer the question of if unions are in compliance every time they make a donation, and if not, is this selective enforcement.
Click to expand...

Well saying they are not getting investigated or charged with anything i would say the answer is they follow the law.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
You bet. I personally believe elections should be federally financed.
Click to expand...

I don't! That's the worst idea I've ever heard. Government bureaucrats are the last mother****ers that get to decide who runs for office.
 
apdst said:
I don't! That's the worst idea I've ever heard. Government bureaucrats are the last mother****ers that get to decide who runs for office.
Click to expand...

How does that decide who gets to run for office? Its simply funded by government money. A system like they have in the UK.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
How does that decide who gets to run for office? Its simply funded by government money. A system like they have in the UK.
Click to expand...

Who gets to run? Any swinging dick? Looks like a waste of money, to me...a waste of MY money.

Screw that. You wanna run for office? Go scrounge up your own money.
 
apdst said:
Who gets to run? Any swinging dick? Looks like a waste of money, to me...a waste of MY money.

Screw that. You wanna run for office? Go scrounge up your own money.
Click to expand...
Its called a "clean election" system.
Under a "clean elections" system, candidates wishing to receive government financing collect a certain number of small "qualifying contributions" (often as little as $5) from registered voters. If they collect enough of these qualifying contributions, they are then paid a flat sum by the government to run their campaigns, and agree not to raise any other money from private sources.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Its called a "clean election" system.
Under a "clean elections" system, candidates wishing to receive government financing collect a certain number of small "qualifying contributions" (often as little as $5) from registered voters. If they collect enough of these qualifying contributions, they are then paid a flat sum by the government to run their campaigns, and agree not to raise any other money from private sources.
Click to expand...

What makes it, "clean"? That's an oxymoron...lol!
 
apdst said:
Who gets to run? Any swinging dick? Looks like a waste of money, to me...a waste of MY money.

Screw that. You wanna run for office? Go scrounge up your own money.
Click to expand...

Some countries have non-partisan oversight. An agency who's job it is to ensure that elections are fair and that all parties follow the rules.

The rules include things like
maximum individual contributions.
maximum spending by any party
where voting stations are located, how many there are, who mans voting stations and how they are trained
what hours the voting stations open
what the rules are for early voting among other things.
In addition this agency determines where the borders are for voting districts (no gerry mandering by either party) and when they need to change due to population changes.

These rules are followed by all parties in all jurisdictions.

The idea is to make elections as fair as possible, ensure everyone who is allowed to vote, has a fair opportunity to vote.

No party can drastically outspend another party and the overall costs of elections to the parties, is contained.
In the U.S. often political parties are making up or changing the rules.

This Agency is the referee and they act on behalf of all voters to ensure a fair election. If a political party wants to win the election they have to do it through ideas and persuasion, not through rules they have put in place to gain a slight edge.

Who gets to run? Political parties pick their own candidates. Political parties collect money through contributions and fund raisers. They can use these funds for party functions like conventions, primaries or whatever. Often one political party may be richer than another. Richer donors, better fund-raising strategies, whatever.

The Agency can only control how much is spent during an election campaign, not how much an individual party spends on other things.

The way the U.S. Government works, I doubt such an agency could ever come into being. Voters might like the idea, parties would not.
 
I think Goldman Sachs wins the bought election thread. Really, at this point does it matter? Every law is written and passed with bought off votes, this means nothing. This is why money should never enter politics. Sadly, its all about the $ these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom