• 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!

Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

  • Yes

    Votes: 53 75.7%
  • No

    Votes: 17 24.3%

  • Total voters
    70
Corporations and Unions are not a person. Yes I would vote for it.

To bad they would just as quickly find a way around it not matter how it was worded.
 
well, you are really going to enjoy my next fact...

corporations can't vote.

your wish has come true :cool:

But they do give millions of dollars to officials to get them elected. Then to keep the money coming the officials give favors by passing legislation that are of no interest to the people, just the corporation and/or unions who contribute.

It's bull****.
 
well, you are really going to enjoy my next fact...

corporations can't vote.

your wish has come true :cool:

Please tell me you are not so naive as to think money does not influence elections?
 
well, you are really going to enjoy my next fact...

corporations can't vote.

your wish has come true :cool:
Since a machine programmed and provided by a corporation counts the votes, I say they don't need to vote.

"The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." -- Josef Stalin (loose translation)
 
key word: almost.

proving money doesn't mean an election win.

Proving money doesn't always mean an election win. It was damned close. Only the fact that this is a blue state kept it from happening. What is proveable is that she bought herself the GOP candicy, so yeah, money buys elections.
 
Please tell me you are not so naive as to think money does not influence elections?

of course money influences elections... that's the reason I donate to candidates.... oh i'm sorry, i forgot to word it in the modern liberal fashion.... I meant to say "that's why I bribe candidates"..'cuz we all know that donations are just bribes.. amirite?

money doesn't choose your leaders though... votes do.
you have the personal choice whether to be influenced or not, by any ad or campaign.

my problem with all this campaign finance reform bullsh*t is that you people are still stuck in this tiny tyrannical box of banning money that is freely given... when you should , at the very least, entertain limiting the candidates and politicians themselves by limiting their expenditures and mandating all the extra cash they may have to go into the general account....i don't care if they are given a gazillion bucks by every corporation or union on the planet... if you say they can only spend 5 million, you'll effectively limit donations as well... but it will be the choice of the donators, and not by mandate.

of course everyone else can spend whatever they like on electioneering media... 'cuz, well, the 1st amendment applies to political speech, whether you like it or not.

I know that all sounds crazy and extreme, but i'm not a fan of the repeated call, mostly by liberals, to ban everything under the sun they don't agree with... I grow weary of your anti-freedom, illiberal, positions.
 
Proving money doesn't always mean an election win. It was damned close. Only the fact that this is a blue state kept it from happening. What is proveable is that she bought herself the GOP candicy, so yeah, money buys elections.

no money doesn't buy elections.... money gets your campaign advertising.

elections are decided by votes, and unless you and others here are going to admit that your vote was bought and paid for, we can't say the election was bought.

I wish i would get paid for my vote, but i haven't found a way to have that happen yet and i was too late to get on-board with ACORN :lol:
 
no money doesn't buy elections.... money gets your campaign advertising.

elections are decided by votes, and unless you and others here are going to admit that your vote was bought and paid for, we can't say the election was bought.

I wish i would get paid for my vote, but i haven't found a way to have that happen yet and i was too late to get on-board with ACORN :lol:

:mrgreen:

Y'know I love ya', Thrilla, and you know I'm not a liberal... but I just disagree on this. I know what SCOTUS has ruled, I know that freedom of speech covers the right to buy congressional seats... and I've lived long enough to see what the practice has wrought. It's gotta change, and it will change. I won't live to see it, but government is broken and money is at the root of the corruption. Campaign contributions are just the beginning. Follow the money, the stench will follow.

Anyway, good night, hon, and have a great Thanksgiving! *hug*
 
:mrgreen:

Y'know I love ya', Thrilla, and you know I'm not a liberal... but I just disagree on this. I know what SCOTUS has ruled, I know that freedom of speech covers the right to buy congressional seats... and I've lived long enough to see what the practice has wrought. It's gotta change, and it will change. I won't live to see it, but government is broken and money is at the root of the corruption. Campaign contributions are just the beginning. Follow the money, the stench will follow.

Anyway, good night, hon, and have a great Thanksgiving! *hug*

we can disagree til the cows come home... and i'll still luv ya babe :mrgreen:

I think we both have the same problem in mind.. but I think we disagree on how to combat it... and in some cases, whether to combat it or not.
i'm not for limiting the private sector, i'm for limiting the candidates and the politicians.

I really don't care what limits you put on politicians and candidates... but i do care when we start taking on the 1st amendment head on.. i have a big problem with that.
 
of course money influences elections... that's the reason I donate to candidates.... oh i'm sorry, i forgot to word it in the modern liberal fashion.... I meant to say "that's why I bribe candidates"..'cuz we all know that donations are just bribes.. amirite?

money doesn't choose your leaders though... votes do.
you have the personal choice whether to be influenced or not, by any ad or campaign.

my problem with all this campaign finance reform bullsh*t is that you people are still stuck in this tiny tyrannical box of banning money that is freely given... when you should , at the very least, entertain limiting the candidates and politicians themselves by limiting their expenditures and mandating all the extra cash they may have to go into the general account....i don't care if they are given a gazillion bucks by every corporation or union on the planet... if you say they can only spend 5 million, you'll effectively limit donations as well... but it will be the choice of the donators, and not by mandate.

of course everyone else can spend whatever they like on electioneering media... 'cuz, well, the 1st amendment applies to political speech, whether you like it or not.

I know that all sounds crazy and extreme, but i'm not a fan of the repeated call, mostly by liberals, to ban everything under the sun they don't agree with... I grow weary of your anti-freedom, illiberal, positions.


Even if you are OK with our leaders being chosen by the highest bidder, the majority of Americans do not seem to be OK with it! The practice also pretty much rules out third party candidates competing equally, leaving our choices between just the two parties, which (sarcasm on) has served us so well (sarcasm off).
 
Money is one of the biggest problems in politics right now, eliminating that to a big extent would greatly help our political process IMO, and would gladly support that my taxpayer dollars go to that. And really in America, 10-15 million isn't all that much.

That's not eliminating it, it's just changing it from voluntary to mandatory.

The money is still there and the amount can be levied by Congress.
They tend to be pretty generous with themselves and public money.

Posted from my phone
 
money doesn't choose your leaders though... votes do.
you have the personal choice whether to be influenced or not, by any ad or campaign.

This.

Thank you for having respect for the voters instead of thinking they are children who need the government's protection from speech.
 
Even if you are OK with our leaders being chosen by the highest bidder, the majority of Americans do not seem to be OK with it!

No, the majority of Americans are perfectly happy with it. They keep going to the polls and voting for those who spend the most money. And they are the ones choosing.

If Americans don't like it, they can simply stop voting for these people.
 
I know what SCOTUS has ruled, I know that freedom of speech covers the right to buy congressional seats... and I've lived long enough to see what the practice has wrought. It's gotta change, and it will change.

If the people want to stop seats from being "bought" they should simply stop selling them.
 
Yes, I want public regulations that prevent anonymous corporations from choosing our leaders for us.

Last time I checked, the voters chose our leaders.

Take responsibility, stop blaming your problems on someone else.
 
Corporations and Unions are not a person. Yes I would vote for it.

Corporations and unions are already banned from giving money to candidates. Have been for decades. Citizen's United didn't change that either.
 
Proving money doesn't always mean an election win. It was damned close. Only the fact that this is a blue state kept it from happening. What is proveable is that she bought herself the GOP candicy, so yeah, money buys elections.

Who was the seller?

Whenever you buy something, there must be a seller.
 
Please tell me you are not so naive as to think money does not influence elections?

Of course it does. So what?

If you see an ad for a Big Mac, do you go out and buy one immediately, or do you choose not to? Are you an adult capable of making a choice?

And if you are a fat slob, do you blame McDonald's ads and demand that the government ban them, or do you take responsibility for your actions?
 
going by incumbent reelection rates, it's either not their plan, or they really really suck at implementing their plan.

Evidently, you have not see the polls that have shown that voters have heap big voters remorse for the party that promised jobs, but once elected, only sought to protect the tax cuts for the wealthy and are willing to sacrifice the middle class and seniors to do so..

A large majority reject their post 2010 positions. A large majority approve of eliminating the tax breaks for the wealthy. A large majority approve of the American Jobs Act.

What has the GOP come up with since the 2010 election that a large majority approves of?
 
Last edited:
we can disagree til the cows come home... and i'll still luv ya babe :mrgreen:

I think we both have the same problem in mind.. but I think we disagree on how to combat it... and in some cases, whether to combat it or not.
i'm not for limiting the private sector, i'm for limiting the candidates and the politicians.



I really don't care what limits you put on politicians and candidates... but i do care when we start taking on the 1st amendment head on.. i have a big problem with that.


You cant limit the candidates and politicians without limiting the access to private funds that buys the elections...this is easy to prove...the lionshare of congress...senate and house are Millionaires and lawyers....theres a reason for that and its not that they are the only ones running or the best of the best to run this country... THEY BUY name recognition, air time and ads and therefore buy the all the advantages.

The absolute best way to get the best people to be able to run is take the horrific amount of money it takes to win out of the equasion and level the playing field.
What could be wrong with saying you want to be President...Ok great...you and anyone else starts out even and equal...you have the same air time...you have the same ad money...may the best person win.....being rich doesnt equate into an HONEST...or even bright or capable individual...
 
Evidently, you have not see the polls that have shown that voters have heap big voters remorse for the party that promised jobs, but once elected, only sought to protect the tax cuts for the wealthy and are willing to sacrifice the middle class and seniors to do so..

A large majority reject their post 2010 positions. A large majority approve of eliminating the tax breaks for the wealthy. A large majority approve of the American Jobs Act.

What has the GOP come up with since the 2010 election that a large majority approves of?

you keep banking on meaningless polls.... i'll keep banking on 200+ years of historical fact.
we'll meet up after the elections and see who fared better... deal?

do you realize the number one reason an incumbent leaves office is ..retirement?
running for reelection and losing is not common whatsoever.
 
You cant limit the candidates and politicians without limiting the access to private funds that buys the elections...this is easy to prove...the lionshare of congress...senate and house are Millionaires and lawyers....theres a reason for that and its not that they are the only ones running or the best of the best to run this country... THEY BUY name recognition, air time and ads and therefore buy the all the advantages.

The absolute best way to get the best people to be able to run is take the horrific amount of money it takes to win out of the equasion and level the playing field.
What could be wrong with saying you want to be President...Ok great...you and anyone else starts out even and equal...you have the same air time...you have the same ad money...may the best person win.....being rich doesnt equate into an HONEST...or even bright or capable individual...

how do you know we can't limit the politicians themselves?.. it's never been attempted by any congress... ever.
lots of attempts at limiting the private money though... every single attempt has been a failure.

i'm assuming that your idea of starting on level ground has something to do with public financing...
there are lots of problems with that as well... mostly i balk at the idea because i do not want my money going to candidates i do not support...i don't care if it's the name of equality or some such nonsense... it's wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom