• 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
Absolutly.
1.) No body can buy an election
2.) Can end corporate influence on elections
 
apdst said:
But, if you restrict political donations to individuals, removing the ability of corporations, unions, special interests, non-profits, etc., you can help insure that politicians aren't beholding to those orginizations.
Click to expand...

Why stop there? Why should they be beholden to rich individuals who can afford to give money?

In fact, what happens is that those of us without much money can pool it by giving it to a group and give it to a candidate so it helps them compete, and without having to go raise it from each one of us.
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
I would support stopping the contributions because it would mean less money for constant bombardment of voters with negative ads and half-truths/lies.
Click to expand...

And also the truth.

It would also level the playing field somewhat between those with support of the rich and powerful and those with the support of the normal people.
Click to expand...

No, it would leave the rich the only ones with money to spend (on their own campaigns). Oops.
 
MaggieD said:
I would absolutely support it. I think campaign money should come from US taxpayers funnelled through the Federal government. A certain amount of money allotted and, within certain guidelines, given out in percentages depending on results of primary elections.

Imagine that. Nobody can buy an election!!

McCain spent $300 million
Obama spent $600 million

My world:

McCain spends $300 million
Obama spends $300 million

'Course my world ain't ever gunna' happen...
Click to expand...

I answered no, but for different reasons:

As long as campaign finance laws are applied equally to a corporation or a union then I'm fine with it.

I.E. - if I, Brian, can only contribute $2,500 to a campaign - then Bank of America or the AFL-CIO should also only be able to donate $2,500 to a campaign - and that would include any "soft" support (i.e. - commercials, etc.).
 
misterman said:
Your source is completely wrong.

Citizen's United is one of the most misunderstood decisions ever. It did NOT free corporations to give directly to candidates.
Click to expand...

You got some documentation to support that? Because the Libbos have been wetting their pants for months, over this; it would be a huge relief to find out they simply misunderstood all this time.
 
The USA is so corrupt that it is disgusting...

Corporations and Unions unfairly influence the government with their money and power. Money and power that most of us will never have and consequently, the government cares more about them than us. That is not what is in our best interest, as we can see by the failing market, the bail outs etc. etc. etc.
 
Your Star said:
No, because no politician in their right mind would choose a limited fund over an unlimited amount.
Click to expand...
Well except that the public money would be guaranteed, whereas there are no guarantees that you'd be able to raise the same amount privately.

The whole point to my idea is to eliminate private money from politics completely, so any form of private money makes screws the pooch with me.
Click to expand...
And part of my political involvement includes donating to campaigns I support, but not donating to those I don't. I'm not interested at all in turning that over to the fed government instead.
 
CriticalThought said:
I didn't pay for votes. I paid for the people who could run.
Click to expand...

No, in your example, you paid for votes.

That is what you don't get. The candidates you see on TV are only the ones who can obtain the funding from corporations, unions, and other special interests groups. The other candidates are filtered out because they can't obtain the funding from those groups. As such we only get to vote between candidates who are already in the pockets of corporations, unions, and other special interests groups.
Click to expand...

About 60-75% of campaign money comes from individuals, not groups. And the groups support candidates on all sides. And the voters can choose anyone they want, not just the ones they see on TV. They have the choice. If it takes money to get elected, that's because of the voters.
 
misterman said:
Why stop there? Why should they be beholden to rich individuals who can afford to give money?
Click to expand...


Why that's individual limits are in place, as I agree they should be.

In fact, what happens is that those of us without much money can pool it by giving it to a group and give it to a candidate so it helps them compete, and without having to go raise it from each one of us.
Click to expand...

Then, that group becomes a player. If those of us without much money just donate directly to the campaign of our choice, our candidate still gets the money.
 
misterman said:
And also the truth.



No, it would leave the rich the only ones with money to spend (on their own campaigns). Oops.
Click to expand...

Not if in addition laws were added that only allowed a delegate to spend X amount of money on a campaign and to receive X amount of money (equal) from each person or organization... that will never happen though, it would create equality amongst the people and the rich would lose their power.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
I answered no, but for different reasons:

As long as campaign finance laws are applied equally to a corporation or a union then I'm fine with it.

I.E. - if I, Brian, can only contribute $2,500 to a campaign - then Bank of America or the AFL-CIO should also only be able to donate $2,500 to a campaign - and that would include any "soft" support (i.e. - commercials, etc.).
Click to expand...

That's true now.

Unions and corporations are banned from giving. They can sponsor PACs that get money voluntarily from their members/shareholders, and use that money to give. Both are subject to the same limits - $5,000 per election.
 
misterman said:
Why stop there? Why should they be beholden to rich individuals who can afford to give money?

In fact, what happens is that those of us without much money can pool it by giving it to a group and give it to a candidate so it helps them compete, and without having to go raise it from each one of us.
Click to expand...

Those groups should be outlawed then. Individuals directly donate. All donations have a cap amount. Make the cap low so that all people have a chance. Make the candidates run on a limited budget. 50 million or so. Why not? No reason why not. Won't happen though... to many will lose too much.
 
misterman said:
No, in your example, you paid for votes.



About 60-75% of campaign money comes from individuals, not groups. And the groups support candidates on all sides. And the voters can choose anyone they want, not just the ones they see on TV. They have the choice. If it takes money to get elected, that's because of the voters.
Click to expand...

It depends on what office you are running for. The first time almost anybody runs for a local or state office like council, mayor, state rep or state senator, they pretty much have to follow what is called D&D - dollars and doors. And to get the dollars you have to follow the F&F plan - friends and family. In the political consulting business, this is gospel and rarely changes with the candidate unless they are wealthy and have the capability of self financing.... and then its merely one D - for doors.

It takes money to get your message out. It takes time and energy to work the doors to meet the voters. Without that, very rarely do you win barring some special circumstances like being a local celebrity who already has high name recognition.
 
I don't understand how corporations are allowed now to contribute moneys when they are globally bound in the present, which in essence creates foreign countries moneys to flow in through corporate donations from all over the world influencing the U.S. elections, I don't want china to sink cash into our political arena, think about it.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Not if in addition laws were added that only allowed a delegate to spend X amount of money on a campaign and to receive X amount of money (equal) from each person or organization... that will never happen though, it would create equality amongst the people and the rich would lose their power.
Click to expand...

You can't limit spending on speech. That's a violation of the First Amendment.

Buckley v. Valeo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
barbarian_style said:
I don't understand how corporations are allowed now to contribute moneys when they are globally bound in the present, which in essence creates foreign countries moneys to flow in through corporate donations from all over the world influencing the U.S. elections, I don't want china to sink cash into our political arena, think about it.
Click to expand...

Corporations aren't allowed to contribute to candidates. They can sponsor PACs that do, with voluntarily-collected money from individuals.
 
haymarket said:
It depends on what office you are running for. The first time almost anybody runs for a local or state office like council, mayor, state rep or state senator, they pretty much have to follow what is called D&D - dollars and doors. And to get the dollars you have to follow the F&F plan - friends and family. In the political consulting business, this is gospel and rarely changes with the candidate unless they are wealthy and have the capability of self financing.... and then its merely one D - for doors.

It takes money to get your message out. It takes time and energy to work the doors to meet the voters. Without that, very rarely do you win barring some special circumstances like being a local celebrity who already has high name recognition.
Click to expand...

Sure. F&F - no corporations or unions or whatever in there.
 
No, I would go the other way. I would support an amendment prohibiting government contributions to corporations or unions. You do that and the corporation and union payments to the government will dry up real quick.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Those groups should be outlawed then. Individuals directly donate. All donations have a cap amount. Make the cap low so that all people have a chance. Make the candidates run on a limited budget. 50 million or so. Why not? No reason why not. Won't happen though... to many will lose too much.
Click to expand...

No. Get your hands out of politics. The people are smart enough to decide how to vote without your help.
 
CriticalThought said:
Would you support an amendment to the United States Constitution which would bar corporations and unions from financially contributing to elections?

Why or why not?
Click to expand...
I support this because it allows corporations to greatly influence our elections and since corporation give anonymously international money goes unchecked. The Citizens United decisions was one of the worse that threatens our democracy.



We the People, Not We the Corporations | Move to Amend
 
friday said:
No, I would go the other way. I would support an amendment prohibiting government contributions to corporations or unions. You do that and the corporation and union payments to the government will dry up real quick.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe corporations that get tax breaks or contracts. Unions don't get any government money now.
 
apdst said:
Well, this will come as a pleasant surprise to alott folks. Quite a few Libbos have been running around with their panties in a twist over this for somet time, now.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm painfully aware of that. It's quite amazing how many people out there completely misunderstand this issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom