Campaign Finance Reform

[HumblePi]

“get money out of politics”. That's been the cry of many of our democratic candidates running for president. Nearly every candidate wants campaign finance reform starting with a pledge to overturn Citizens United. Nine years ago, the Supreme Court handed down its disastrous 5-4 Citizens United ruling. Since then, countless corporate campaign contributions have flooded our elections drowning out the voices of millions of voters.

Dark money and shadowy political spending has corrupted our democratic republic. It diminishes the desires of the people while putting the interests of rich corporations and entities as priorities.

Who wouldn't want campaign reform? Who else but those with the big money, that's who. If I'm CEO of an oil conglomerate, or VP of an aluminum plant, I can well afford to buy a politician with the promise of him voting on bills that favor my plant or business in order to make more profit. But the appeal of big money is seductive to candidates because the more money they have to spend on television ads, internet websites, robo-calls, mailings, etc., then the more people they'll reach and be able to influence their vote.

The Koch brothers and the George Soros's and Wall Street individual along with every imaginable interest group you can think of have increased the number of lobbyists by 15 times since 1970. Citizens United has not only allowed this, it has encouraged this.

 

[Winston]

“get money out of politics”. That's been the cry of many of our democratic candidates running for president. Nearly every candidate wants campaign finance reform starting with a pledge to overturn Citizens United. Nine years ago, the Supreme Court handed down its disastrous 5-4 Citizens United ruling. Since then, countless corporate campaign contributions have flooded our elections drowning out the voices of millions of voters.

Dark money and shadowy political spending has corrupted our democratic republic. It diminishes the desires of the people while putting the interests of rich corporations and entities as priorities.

Who wouldn't want campaign reform? Who else but those with the big money, that's who. If I'm CEO of an oil conglomerate, or VP of an aluminum plant, I can well afford to buy a politician with the promise of him voting on bills that favor my plant or business in order to make more profit. But the appeal of big money is seductive to candidates because the more money they have to spend on television ads, internet websites, robo-calls, mailings, etc., then the more people they'll reach and be able to influence their vote.

The Koch brothers and the George Soros's and Wall Street individual along with every imaginable interest group you can think of have increased the number of lobbyists by 15 times since 1970. Citizens United has not only allowed this, it has encouraged this.

Money in politics benefits the right wing because right wing politics prioritizes wealthy interests.

But get a few hundred thousand citizens pouring out of state money into some Senate or House races (Like the Susan Collins one) and you just may change some minds on the right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[independentusa]

“get money out of politics”. That's been the cry of many of our democratic candidates running for president. Nearly every candidate wants campaign finance reform starting with a pledge to overturn Citizens United. Nine years ago, the Supreme Court handed down its disastrous 5-4 Citizens United ruling. Since then, countless corporate campaign contributions have flooded our elections drowning out the voices of millions of voters.

Dark money and shadowy political spending has corrupted our democratic republic. It diminishes the desires of the people while putting the interests of rich corporations and entities as priorities.

Who wouldn't want campaign reform? Who else but those with the big money, that's who. If I'm CEO of an oil conglomerate, or VP of an aluminum plant, I can well afford to buy a politician with the promise of him voting on bills that favor my plant or business in order to make more profit. But the appeal of big money is seductive to candidates because the more money they have to spend on television ads, internet websites, robo-calls, mailings, etc., then the more people they'll reach and be able to influence their vote.

The Koch brothers and the George Soros's and Wall Street individual along with every imaginable interest group you can think of have increased the number of lobbyists by 15 times since 1970. Citizens United has not only allowed this, it has encouraged this.

Why is money important for candidates, because they know the facts. In the last elections, 86% of those who spent the most won their election. For the first time in a long time the Dems outspent the GOP in 2018 and they won the election. Does not need a genus to say, raise the big bucks and your chances of winning go up. This is what Citizens has done to our elections, the wealthy can "buy" elections and then put pressure on the elected to do as the wealthy want or no more money next election. It is sooooo simple.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Why is money important for candidates, because they know the facts. In the last elections, 86% of those who spent the most won their election. For the first time in a long time the Dems outspent the GOP in 2018 and they won the election. Does not need a genus to say, raise the big bucks and your chances of winning go up. This is what Citizens has done to our elections, the wealthy can "buy" elections and then put pressure on the elected to do as the wealthy want or no more money next election. It is sooooo simple.

It is so simple, but so are the obvious problems.
So is the solution.

 

[snakestretcher]

“get money out of politics”. That's been the cry of many of our democratic candidates running for president. Nearly every candidate wants campaign finance reform starting with a pledge to overturn Citizens United. Nine years ago, the Supreme Court handed down its disastrous 5-4 Citizens United ruling. Since then, countless corporate campaign contributions have flooded our elections drowning out the voices of millions of voters.

Dark money and shadowy political spending has corrupted our democratic republic. It diminishes the desires of the people while putting the interests of rich corporations and entities as priorities.

Who wouldn't want campaign reform? Who else but those with the big money, that's who. If I'm CEO of an oil conglomerate, or VP of an aluminum plant, I can well afford to buy a politician with the promise of him voting on bills that favor my plant or business in order to make more profit. But the appeal of big money is seductive to candidates because the more money they have to spend on television ads, internet websites, robo-calls, mailings, etc., then the more people they'll reach and be able to influence their vote.

The Koch brothers and the George Soros's and Wall Street individual along with every imaginable interest group you can think of have increased the number of lobbyists by 15 times since 1970. Citizens United has not only allowed this, it has encouraged this.

Yes, I've commented on this many times. Get the money out, ban single interest lobby groups (eg AIPAC and NRA), give equal air time to each candidate to air their manifesto and ban negative advertising about your opposition. That might go some way toward levelling the playing field. Buying one's way into power is not democracy; it's a commercial transaction.

 

[Moderate Right]

“get money out of politics”. That's been the cry of many of our democratic candidates running for president. Nearly every candidate wants campaign finance reform starting with a pledge to overturn Citizens United. Nine years ago, the Supreme Court handed down its disastrous 5-4 Citizens United ruling. Since then, countless corporate campaign contributions have flooded our elections drowning out the voices of millions of voters.

Dark money and shadowy political spending has corrupted our democratic republic. It diminishes the desires of the people while putting the interests of rich corporations and entities as priorities.

Who wouldn't want campaign reform? Who else but those with the big money, that's who. If I'm CEO of an oil conglomerate, or VP of an aluminum plant, I can well afford to buy a politician with the promise of him voting on bills that favor my plant or business in order to make more profit. But the appeal of big money is seductive to candidates because the more money they have to spend on television ads, internet websites, robo-calls, mailings, etc., then the more people they'll reach and be able to influence their vote.

The Koch brothers and the George Soros's and Wall Street individual along with every imaginable interest group you can think of have increased the number of lobbyists by 15 times since 1970. Citizens United has not only allowed this, it has encouraged this.

Yes, Hillary and her cronies far outspent Trump in 2016 but, not to worry, Trump overcame all of that money being used against him in both the primaries and in the general.

 

[gdgyva]

i am a corporation

i also send money to candidate i like

so if we are going to get money out of politics...fine....lets get ALL money out of politics

here is my proposal

all donations go through a big 5 CPA firm, and are anonymous...then are funneled into the candidate of their choice on a weekly basis

all donations are limited to a maximum of $ 1000 period per person...ie a family of 4 can donate 4k even if the last 2 are babies

all pacs and superpacs must be eliminated...ALL OF THEM

no unions, corporations, or any entity can give to a candidate nor can they collect for any candidate

i figure all of these changes will reduce the money coming in to 1/1000 of what it is now

maybe we will have a few less signs in the neighborhoods, and a few less commercials in oct/nov

 

[HumblePi]

Yes, Hillary and her cronies far outspent Trump in 2016 but, not to worry, Trump overcame all of that money being used against him in both the primaries and in the general.

Yes he overcame that by pulling in big money from mega-donors like these, it's easy to outspend HRC

1. Robert Mercer, Renaissance Technologies - $13.5 million
2. Sheldon Adelson and Miriam Adelson, Las Vegas Sands Corporation (LVS) - $10 million
3. Linda McMahon, World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. (WWE) - $6 million
4. Bernard Marcus, Retired - $7 million
5. Geoffrey Palmer, G.H. Palmer Associates - $2 million
6. Ronald M Cameron, Mountaire Corp. - $2 million
7. Peter Thiel, Palantir Technologies - $1.25 million
8. Walter Buckley Jr, Actua Corporation (ACTA) - $1 million
9. Cherna Moskowitz, Hawaiian Gardens Casino - $1 million
10. Peter Zieve, Electroimpact - $1 million

 

[Moderate Right]

Yes he overcame that by pulling in big money from mega-donors like these, it's easy to outspend HRC

1. Robert Mercer, Renaissance Technologies - $13.5 million
2. Sheldon Adelson and Miriam Adelson, Las Vegas Sands Corporation (LVS) - $10 million
3. Linda McMahon, World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. (WWE) - $6 million
4. Bernard Marcus, Retired - $7 million
5. Geoffrey Palmer, G.H. Palmer Associates - $2 million
6. Ronald M Cameron, Mountaire Corp. - $2 million
7. Peter Thiel, Palantir Technologies - $1.25 million
8. Walter Buckley Jr, Actua Corporation (ACTA) - $1 million
9. Cherna Moskowitz, Hawaiian Gardens Casino - $1 million
10. Peter Zieve, Electroimpact - $1 million

Hillary & Co far, far outspent Trump. And, many in the primaries spent millions and billions fighting Trump. Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

 

[apdst]

“get money out of politics”. That's been the cry of many of our democratic candidates running for president. Nearly every candidate wants campaign finance reform starting with a pledge to overturn Citizens United. Nine years ago, the Supreme Court handed down its disastrous 5-4 Citizens United ruling. Since then, countless corporate campaign contributions have flooded our elections drowning out the voices of millions of voters.

Dark money and shadowy political spending has corrupted our democratic republic. It diminishes the desires of the people while putting the interests of rich corporations and entities as priorities.

Who wouldn't want campaign reform? Who else but those with the big money, that's who. If I'm CEO of an oil conglomerate, or VP of an aluminum plant, I can well afford to buy a politician with the promise of him voting on bills that favor my plant or business in order to make more profit. But the appeal of big money is seductive to candidates because the more money they have to spend on television ads, internet websites, robo-calls, mailings, etc., then the more people they'll reach and be able to influence their vote.

The Koch brothers and the George Soros's and Wall Street individual along with every imaginable interest group you can think of have increased the number of lobbyists by 15 times since 1970. Citizens United has not only allowed this, it has encouraged this.

Be careful what you wish for. If Citizens United is over turned, unions won't be able to donate to political campaigns...

Fourteen of America’s 25 Biggest Campaign Donors Are Unions | National Review

 

[Torus34]

Actually, it might be possible to add yet another wrinkle to our election process. It would go like this.

A corporation will be formed. It can be for profit or non-profit. It will secure pledges from voters that they will vote for a specific individual to be named at a later date. The voters will be paid for their pledge.

The pledges can then be bundled, say in packages of 100 votes. People will be free to bid on the packages, which they can then 'spend' as they wish, either for or against a candidate. It may even be possible to develop a market for the pledges.

Viva Capitalism!

Comments?

 

[independentusa]

It is so simple, but so are the obvious problems.
So is the solution.

The solution is simple, overturn a really bad SCOTUS decision. The cons on the court try and tell us that they are originalists, but there is no place in the bill of rights that tells us corporations have the same rights as Americans and certainly no place that speech is money. Those are "interpretations' by the court and they are wrong. And if they can not overturn that decision, then pass a law making any donation to any PAC or religious organization that participates in the open to the public so we know who is buying our elections. Get the so called dark money out of our elections.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The solution is simple, overturn a really bad SCOTUS decision. The cons on the court try and tell us that they are originalists, but there is no place in the bill of rights that tells us corporations have the same rights as Americans and certainly no place that speech is money. Those are "interpretations' by the court and they are wrong. And if they can not overturn that decision, then pass a law making any donation to any PAC or religious organization that participates in the open to the public so we know who is buying our elections. Get the so called dark money out of our elections.

You know, there is a certain subtlety in the corporate personhood issue which a lot of people miss.
Mitt Romney once told a voter, "Corporations are people too." and in all actuality, he was right, corporations ARE made up of people, so yes...corporations ARE PEOPLE.

But the recent SCOTUS rulings did not reinforce the notion that "corporations are people", they invented an entirely new concept, the concept that a corporation IS A PERSON (singular) for the purposes of campaign contributions.

There's an enormous difference, despite the apparent subtlety, between "corporations are people" and "a corporation is A PERSON."

For the purposes of contract law, it is and should be permissible to regard a corporation as a person, but when it comes to political contributions, NO...the same ruling should not apply at all, because it creates an entirely new species of "person", one which is potentially immortal, and possessed of nearly unlimited wealth and power, possibly far beyond that of even the wealthiest human being on Earth.
And a corporation, by its very nature, does not have a soul or a conscience, not the way human beings have.

Corporations are people, but a corporation is not a person, not for political purposes.

 

[independentusa]

You know, there is a certain subtlety in the corporate personhood issue which a lot of people miss.
Mitt Romney once told a voter, "Corporations are people too." and in all actuality, he was right, corporations ARE made up of people, so yes...corporations ARE PEOPLE.

But the recent SCOTUS rulings did not reinforce the notion that "corporations are people", they invented an entirely new concept, the concept that a corporation IS A PERSON (singular) for the purposes of campaign contributions.

There's an enormous difference, despite the apparent subtlety, between "corporations are people" and "a corporation is A PERSON."

For the purposes of contract law, it is and should be permissible to regard a corporation as a person, but when it comes to political contributions, NO...the same ruling should not apply at all, because it creates an entirely new species of "person", one which is potentially immortal, and possessed of nearly unlimited wealth and power, possibly far beyond that of even the wealthiest human being on Earth.
And a corporation, by its very nature, does not have a soul or a conscience, not the way human beings have.

Corporations are people, but a corporation is not a person, not for political purposes.

Actually Corporations are not people, they are the opposite. There are two basic reasons that corporations were developed. One is to make it easier for businesses to borrow money. the second is to reduce the liability of the owners, i.e. stock holders. So they remove people from being responsible for the actions of the corporations, thus removing them from the people who own them.

 

[Surrealistik]

“get money out of politics”. That's been the cry of many of our democratic candidates running for president. Nearly every candidate wants campaign finance reform starting with a pledge to overturn Citizens United. Nine years ago, the Supreme Court handed down its disastrous 5-4 Citizens United ruling. Since then, countless corporate campaign contributions have flooded our elections drowning out the voices of millions of voters.

Dark money and shadowy political spending has corrupted our democratic republic. It diminishes the desires of the people while putting the interests of rich corporations and entities as priorities.

Who wouldn't want campaign reform? Who else but those with the big money, that's who. If I'm CEO of an oil conglomerate, or VP of an aluminum plant, I can well afford to buy a politician with the promise of him voting on bills that favor my plant or business in order to make more profit. But the appeal of big money is seductive to candidates because the more money they have to spend on television ads, internet websites, robo-calls, mailings, etc., then the more people they'll reach and be able to influence their vote.

The Koch brothers and the George Soros's and Wall Street individual along with every imaginable interest group you can think of have increased the number of lobbyists by 15 times since 1970. Citizens United has not only allowed this, it has encouraged this.

Citizens United is merely a symptom of the greater disease that is the historically idiotic Buckley v Valeo 76 ruling that constitutionally enshrined unlimited political spending as speech.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Actually Corporations are not people, they are the opposite. There are two basic reasons that corporations were developed. One is to make it easier for businesses to borrow money. the second is to reduce the liability of the owners, i.e. stock holders. So they remove people from being responsible for the actions of the corporations, thus removing them from the people who own them.

But they ARE made up of people. Most corporations are made up of quite a few people.
And the reason for corporate personhood is clear, for contractual and legal purposes, it's common sense.

And yes, it is a compromise. While your reasoning is more than sound, the fact is, the concept of corporate personhood grew out of a court case, which often involves some amount of compromise somewhere along the line.
It's just that the SCOTUS recently distorted corporate personhood when they expanded it to include political spending, and in the process imbued corporations with human qualities that they do not deserve on a unitary basis, but rather only on a collective basis per each individual.

It is and always has been enough that corporations keep their personnel informed as to the best interests of the corporation, and from there, they must trust those people to understand and to make decisions with those interests in mind. This by default forces corporations to try to act as much in the interests of the people as they do for their own interests, because this being a western democracy, they cannot force personnel to reveal what they are voting for, or for whom. Therefore, corporations will have to sell their ideas and interests to their own people on their own merits.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Citizens United is merely a symptom of the greater disease that is the historically idiotic Buckley v Valeo 76 ruling that constitutionally enshrined unlimited political spending as speech.

And it should be more properly referred to as "Citizens Divided" :lamo