• 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!

A political Campaign funding law we need to pass and soon!

I

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
9,303
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We have recently found out that many of our Federal politico's have taken campaign money from foreign entities. Much of it coming from people or entities directly or indirectly connected to the very Russians who have already done enough to interfere with our elections. The Treasury Dept set out a new rule saying that no one had to let us know where funding came from. I think that we should pass a law requiring that campaigns and PAC's be required to provide the public a list of donations that directly or indirectly come from foreign sources. It would allow American citizens to remain anonymous, but let us, the American public, see when one of our politico's take money from foreigners.
 
independentusa said:
We have recently found out that many of our Federal politico's have taken campaign money from foreign entities. Much of it coming from people or entities directly or indirectly connected to the very Russians who have already done enough to interfere with our elections. The Treasury Dept set out a new rule saying that no one had to let us know where funding came from. I think that we should pass a law requiring that campaigns and PAC's be required to provide the public a list of donations that directly or indirectly come from foreign sources. It would allow American citizens to remain anonymous, but let us, the American public, see when one of our politico's take money from foreigners.
Click to expand...

What's next? Do away with secret ballots?
 
independentusa said:
We have recently found out that many of our Federal politico's have taken campaign money from foreign entities. Much of it coming from people or entities directly or indirectly connected to the very Russians who have already done enough to interfere with our elections. The Treasury Dept set out a new rule saying that no one had to let us know where funding came from. I think that we should pass a law requiring that campaigns and PAC's be required to provide the public a list of donations that directly or indirectly come from foreign sources. It would allow American citizens to remain anonymous, but let us, the American public, see when one of our politico's take money from foreigners.
Click to expand...

I would go with allowing unlimited donation amounts...BUT...EVERY donation must be identified and that info made publicly available. Also, no bundling.
 
independentusa said:
We have recently found out that many of our Federal politico's have taken campaign money from foreign entities. Much of it coming from people or entities directly or indirectly connected to the very Russians who have already done enough to interfere with our elections. The Treasury Dept set out a new rule saying that no one had to let us know where funding came from. I think that we should pass a law requiring that campaigns and PAC's be required to provide the public a list of donations that directly or indirectly come from foreign sources. It would allow American citizens to remain anonymous, but let us, the American public, see when one of our politico's take money from foreigners.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with this IF strict rules remain in place on how not for profit groups, primarily 501(c)(4) organizations, are allowed to participate in the national discussion. So long as the organization is promoting or opposing a particular issue, say abortion or Second Amendment or border control, or any other broadly controversial subjects, who cares who contributed to it? I should be able to contribute to a private organization without worry that my name, location, and any other affiliations will be plastered all over the front pages the next day. It should be my prerogative to make public who I give contributions to.

BUT. . .the organization should not be able to take jabs at political figures with their educational materials, ads, promotions. It is one thing to say that the Democratic platform promotes unconditional abortion on demand while the Republican platform promotes restrictions on late term abortions, but it is quite another to say that Hillary Clinton supports unconditional abortion on demand or Donald Trump supports restrictions on late term abortions.

NOTE: This is intended as an illustration only and NOT intended to redirect the discussion to abortion!!!
 
independentusa said:
We have recently found out that many of our Federal politico's have taken campaign money from foreign entities. Much of it coming from people or entities directly or indirectly connected to the very Russians who have already done enough to interfere with our elections. The Treasury Dept set out a new rule saying that no one had to let us know where funding came from. I think that we should pass a law requiring that campaigns and PAC's be required to provide the public a list of donations that directly or indirectly come from foreign sources. It would allow American citizens to remain anonymous, but let us, the American public, see when one of our politico's take money from foreigners.
Click to expand...

It's a start, but getting a list of indirect sources will always be a problem.

It's well known that American banks stopped loaning to the Surrender Monkey after years of not getting paid back. Who took their place? He turned to Russia. They've been laundering each others cash for years.

It will come out soon that Putin has been indirectly giving the NRA millions and they in turn passed it on to his protege's campaign. Working out how to hide and mislead investigators takes a lot of discussions. Private discussions...
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
I would go with allowing unlimited donation amounts...BUT...EVERY donation must be identified and that info made publicly available. Also, no bundling.
Click to expand...

I am really torn on this one. My belief that it should not be the business of government or political campaigns to broadcast who I gave to or what causes I have supported over the years. On the other hand, there must be controls in place to prevent money laundering to get around rules that foreign powers cannot contribute to U.S. campaigns, etc.

I do support laws that prevent foreign interests to actively promote American political candidates or parties.

So your argument may be better than mine. I'll definitely give that some thought.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I am really torn on this one. My belief that it should not be the business of government or political campaigns to broadcast who I gave to or what causes I have supported over the years. On the other hand, there must be controls in place to prevent money laundering to get around rules that foreign powers cannot contribute to U.S. campaigns, etc.

I do support laws that prevent foreign interests to actively promote American political candidates or parties.

So your argument may be better than mine. I'll definitely give that some thought.
Click to expand...

That's a good argument?!?

Do you have any idea have much money Putin controls? If he's allowed to give the Repubs and his man essentially unlimited funds, what's to keep him from buying our President? Foreign money should never be allowed to sway our domestic elections. Period.

As a whole the Repubs have been well known xenophobes since, well, forever. But it now seems that they're willing to open their arms to our enemies if it means winning elections. Whatever happened to conservative's love of country?!? This is the direct result of sinking so low that they now believe that that ends justifies the means. It doesn't...
 
independentusa said:
We have recently found out that many of our Federal politico's have taken campaign money from foreign entities. Much of it coming from people or entities directly or indirectly connected to the very Russians who have already done enough to interfere with our elections. The Treasury Dept set out a new rule saying that no one had to let us know where funding came from. I think that we should pass a law requiring that campaigns and PAC's be required to provide the public a list of donations that directly or indirectly come from foreign sources. It would allow American citizens to remain anonymous, but let us, the American public, see when one of our politico's take money from foreigners.
Click to expand...

It is better than what we currently have. I'd take it for now.

What I would love to see is national elections funded through federal tax and income tax donations. No dark money, no foreign money, no corporate money. In addition I would like to see nothing longer than a 6 month campaign season.

Return the elections to the People. Get the corruption out of federal elections.
 
While we're amending campaign finance laws, we need to establish whether or not paying whores off to keep them from blemishing the candidate's image, is a campaign expense or not.
 
independentusa said:
We have recently found out that many of our Federal politico's have taken campaign money from foreign entities. Much of it coming from people or entities directly or indirectly connected to the very Russians who have already done enough to interfere with our elections. The Treasury Dept set out a new rule saying that no one had to let us know where funding came from. I think that we should pass a law requiring that campaigns and PAC's be required to provide the public a list of donations that directly or indirectly come from foreign sources. It would allow American citizens to remain anonymous, but let us, the American public, see when one of our politico's take money from foreigners.
Click to expand...

[USC07] 52 USC 30121: Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
 
Risky Thicket said:
It is better than what we currently have. I'd take it for now.

What I would love to see is national elections funded through federal tax and income tax donations. No dark money, no foreign money, no corporate money. In addition I would like to see nothing longer than a 6 month campaign season.

Return the elections to the People. Get the corruption out of federal elections.
Click to expand...

The problem with thst will be that sooner, or later the people who shell out the money will be saying who can and can't run for office despite what The Constitution says. The other side of that coin will be every swinging dick registering to run for office and wanting their campaign money. There would be 50 people running for president. It would be a waste of time and money.
 
SoCal said:
That's a good argument?!?

Do you have any idea have much money Putin controls? If he's allowed to give the Repubs and his man essentially unlimited funds, what's to keep him from buying our President? Foreign money should never be allowed to sway our domestic elections. Period.

As a whole the Repubs have been well known xenophobes since, well, forever. But it now seems that they're willing to open their arms to our enemies if it means winning elections. Whatever happened to conservative's love of country?!? This is the direct result of sinking so low that they now believe that that ends justifies the means. It doesn't...
Click to expand...

Russia somebody recently described economically as Mexico with nukes. It is unlikely they will funnel enough money into the system to make much of a difference and apparently they are pretty ineffective when they do so. But I'm pretty sure they are pretty good at hiding the source of what money they do funnel into the system so nobody's list would indicate contributions from Russia, but those would look pretty innocuous.

However, pretty much nobody on your side complained when Russia, via the Skolkovo partners negotiating the deal, poured millions of dollars (somewhere between $7 and $23 million) into the Clinton Foundation and paid Bill Clinton $500k--twice his normal speaking fee--for a small audience, non publicized speech about pretty much nothing and all this was when the Uranium One deal was going down giving a sizable percentage of U.S. uranium to Russian control. Initially it was billed that no uranium could be exported from the U.S. but that quickly went by the wayside as significant stores went to their Ontario based firm and from there to Europe and no doubt to Russia who has also been supplying uranium to Iran with Obama administration approval.

. . .First, Obama reinstated a U.S.-Russia civilian nuclear energy cooperation agreement. President George W. Bush had signed the agreement in 2008, but withdrew from it before it could take effect after Russia became involved in a military conflict with the former Soviet republic of Georgia, a U.S. ally, and after new concerns surfaced that Moscow was secretly aiding Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions.

Obama re-submitted the agreement for approval by the Democrat-controlled Congress in May 2010, declaring Russia should be viewed as a friendly partner under Section 123 the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 after agreeing to a new nuclear weapons reduction deal and helping the U.S. with Iran. . .​
Uranium One deal led to some exports to Europe, memos show | TheHill

In early January, 2017:
. . .VIENNA (AP) — Iran is to receive a huge shipment of natural uranium from Russia to compensate it for exporting tons of reactor coolant, diplomats say, in a move approved by the outgoing U.S. administration and other governments seeking to keep Tehran committed to a landmark nuclear pact.

Two senior diplomats said the transfer recently approved by the U.S. and five other world powers that negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran foresees delivery of nearly 130 tons of natural uranium. . .​
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/01/09/diplomats-iran-natural-uranium-batch/96367868/

Would President Trump have agreed to either deal? There is no way to know, but I would lay odds he would not and he would not have made the nuclear deal with Iran in the first place, most especially one with a relatively short time limit on some restrictions.
 
Captain America said:
While we're amending campaign finance laws, we need to establish whether or not paying whores off to keep them from blemishing the candidate's image, is a campaign expense or not.
Click to expand...

We also need to decide if it's legal for a campain to funnel money through a law firm, so the law firm can pay for oppo-research from a foreign agent, the claim the expenditure is a legal expense.
 
apdst said:
We also need to decide if it's legal for a campain to funnel money through a law firm, so the law firm can pay for oppo-research from a foreign agent, the claim the expenditure is a legal expense.
Click to expand...

That's a good idea too.

But there is a big difference between contracting an intelligence gathering business, from a registered, legally licensed, investigation business, be it foreign or domestic, vs. a cover-up by covertly bribing a whore to keep her mouth shut, to avoid being exposed and keeping the transactions hidden. The is a little on the fraud side if you ask me. But I'm no lawyer.

I do, however, question whether if said foreign intelligence gathering company was a legally declared agency allowed to business with American entities. If so, and it's all legal on the up-and-up, I really see nothing illegal about it. I can see how it can be considered pretty sleezy though.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Russia somebody recently described economically as Mexico with nukes. It is unlikely they will funnel enough money into the system to make much of a difference and apparently they are pretty ineffective when they do so...
Click to expand...

The economics of Russia is one thing, the personal wealth of Putin is another. "Is Vladimir Putin Secretly the Richest Man in the World"?

The election of Putin's man is direct proof of just how effective Putin is...
 
Captain America said:
That's a good idea too.

But there is a big difference between contracting an intelligence gathering business, from a registered, legally licensed, investigation business, be it foreign and domestic, vs. covertly bribing a whore to keep her mouth shut, to avoid being exposed. Would you not agree?

I do, however, question whether if said foreign intelligence gathering company was a legally declared agency allowed to business with American entities. If so, and it's all legal on the up-and-up, I really see nothing illegal about it. I can see how it can be considered pretty sleezy though.
Click to expand...

Lying about campaign expenses is already illegal. Isn't it?
 
apdst said:
Lying about campaign expenses is already illegal. Isn't it?
Click to expand...

I would think so.

But these days, depending what "is" is and what is considered "lying," (especially in circles who speak in "alt-truths,") some clarity would be helpful.
 
SoCal said:
The economics of Russia is one thing, the personal wealth of Putin is another. "Is Vladimir Putin Secretly the Richest Man in the World"?

The election of Putin's man is direct proof of just how effective Putin is...
Click to expand...

For sure Putin is has a net worth of many billions. He doesn't need any more money, but he definitely would like to enjoy the prestige of heading a world power as his predecessors did. I am pretty sure he knows his chances of conquering the USA are teensy to none, but certainly he would like to make Russia look as good as we do. Unfortunately, being a dedicated Marxist, he has neither the insight nor will to do what would be necessary to do so.

Given their vast natural resources and geographical location, a Russia controlled by the likes of our Founders, could be the greatest nation on Earth.

So let's don't worry about whatever money he wants to throw over here and thereby strengthen our economy instead of using it to strengthen his own. As long as we have controls on how much of America he can own and controls on what those he contributes to can do with the money, I just don't see a problem.
 
apdst said:
What's next? Do away with secret ballots?
Click to expand...

I am not in favor of requiring Americans to be named, by why would you be against us knowing which countries are paying to have an influence on our elections? Makes we wonder who you are and where you are from. You do know there is a law against taking money from other governments during an election. How dp we know if campaigns are breaking the law if we don't know where foreign money comes from? And what the hell does asking which foreigners are giving money to campaigns has anything to do with secret ballots.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I don't have a problem with this IF strict rules remain in place on how not for profit groups, primarily 501(c)(4) organizations, are allowed to participate in the national discussion. So long as the organization is promoting or opposing a particular issue, say abortion or Second Amendment or border control, or any other broadly controversial subjects, who cares who contributed to it? I should be able to contribute to a private organization without worry that my name, location, and any other affiliations will be plastered all over the front pages the next day. It should be my prerogative to make public who I give contributions to.

BUT. . .the organization should not be able to take jabs at political figures with their educational materials, ads, promotions. It is one thing to say that the Democratic platform promotes unconditional abortion on demand while the Republican platform promotes restrictions on late term abortions, but it is quite another to say that Hillary Clinton supports unconditional abortion on demand or Donald Trump supports restrictions on late term abortions.

NOTE: This is intended as an illustration only and NOT intended to redirect the discussion to abortion!!!
Click to expand...

Did I mention anywhere in my OP about content?
 
apdst said:
We also need to decide if it's legal for a campain to funnel money through a law firm, so the law firm can pay for oppo-research from a foreign agent, the claim the expenditure is a legal expense.
Click to expand...

If you are talking about the CLinton's and Steele, Steele was not a foreign agent. He was working for an American Company and was an ex-agent. If you are going to rule out everey American company that hires non-Americans, it would be pretty hard to do business with anyone.
 
Captain America said:
I would think so.

But these days, depending what "is" is and what is considered "lying," (especially in circles who speak in "alt-truths,") some clarity would be helpful.
Click to expand...

But how do you know if you can't ask? That is what the Treasury Departments latest rule says, you can't ask anything about campaign donations.
 
AlbqOwl said:
For sure Putin is has a net worth of many billions. He doesn't need any more money, but he definitely would like to enjoy the prestige of heading a world power as his predecessors did. I am pretty sure he knows his chances of conquering the USA are teensy to none, but certainly he would like to make Russia look as good as we do. Unfortunately, being a dedicated Marxist, he has neither the insight nor will to do what would be necessary to do so.

Given their vast natural resources and geographical location, a Russia controlled by the likes of our Founders, could be the greatest nation on Earth.

So let's don't worry about whatever money he wants to throw over here and thereby strengthen our economy instead of using it to strengthen his own. As long as we have controls on how much of America he can own and controls on what those he contributes to can do with the money, I just don't see a problem.
Click to expand...

Installing his man ithe WH does not strengthen America, quite the opposite...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom