• 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
LOL. Again, it's not about the content of the speech and whether or not I agree with that content. It's about the effects of how the system is structured.

What effects do you not like?

That text actually does not indicate what you're saying that you think it does.

I was referring to "it produces perverse results that are harmful to the country as a whole." What perverse results do you mean?

Compelling national interest is an already a very well established reason for suppressing speech. So I am not sure where you got the idea that it isn't.

But compelling national interest has a very specific legal meaning. It doesn't mean "I think things are bad."

It's still not about what is said. It's not at all about the content of the speech. It's really not. It's about who is doing the "speaking" [the term is being used very loosely all of a sudden] and to whom in what circumstances.

Doesn't matter about content. You don't like the results. Same principle. You can't have a law that says "the speech of X must be abridged because it leads to Y."

Is it really that hard to distinguish between these two sets? Lobbying a member of govt {a corporation making donations to a political party or a PAC, a corporation taking a Congress critter golfing or on trip} and lobbying the electorate {that same corporation publishing an ad in a newspaper, buying airtime, creating a web site?}

Well, see, now we've finally gotten to the point. Lobbying is NOT making donations or golf trips.
 
You are being silly now. People do occasionally stand as independents and even more occasionally get elected. Britian's political parties used to be funded by party members but due to the lack of interest during the last 30 years as we become more and more right wing and people believe no one represents them, they have lost most of their members.

So, let me get this straight. Independents aren't getting elected due to lack of interest, and that's money's fault, and I'm silly?
 
What effects do you not like?
I was referring to "it produces perverse results that are harmful to the country as a whole." What perverse results do you mean?
Re-re-posting this yet again.

Rational Ignorance
Politicians exploit rational ignorance by conferring large benefits on certain constituents whose costs are widely dispersed and borne by the general population. Take the sugar industry. It pays the owners and workers to organize and tax themselves to raise money to lobby Congress for tariffs on foreign sugar. If they're successful, it means millions of dollars in higher profits and wages. Since they are relatively small in number the organization costs are small and the benefits are narrowly distributed.​

As a result of price supports and import restrictions, millions of American sugar consumers pay a few dollars more per year for the sugar we use. The U.S. General Accounting Office estimates that Americans pay between $1 and $2 billion a year in higher sugar prices. Forget about finding out and doing something about these costs. After all how many of us are willing to board a plane or train to Washington to try to unseat congressmen who made us pay $5 more for the sugar we bought last year? It's not worth it; it's cheaper just to pay the $5 and forget it. For workers and owners in the sugar industry it is worth it to descend on Washington to try to unseat congressmen who refuse to support restrictions on foreign sugar. It's worth $1 or $2 billion to them...​

You say, "What's the grief, Williams? Five dollars won't kill you." Washington is home to thousands of business and labor union lobbyists... According to some estimates, restrictions of one kind or another cost the average American family $5,000 to $6,000 a year in higher prices.
.
What's worse is that the system is set such that Congress is playing the lobbyists for more money by screwing with our tax code to keep these businesses guessing and lobbying. The two groups--the legislators and the lobbyists--are screwing the country for their own benefit.

And this

Is money's deep role in politics the root of our woes? - CNN.com



...a few of the most striking facts he marshals are worth recognizing. Among them:-- ... from 1974 to 2008, Lessig notes, the average cost of a re-election campaign ballooned from $56,000 to more than $1.3 million, a more than twentyfold increase that far outpaces inflation.

-- ...Candidates have to spend between 30% and 70% of their time raising money. (Lobbyists, however can ease this pressure through many kinds of what Lessig calls "legislative subsidies" -- advice, research, support, and most of all, campaign cash.)

-- ... In the 1970s, just 3% of retiring members of Congress went into lobbying. But by 2004, in the previous seven years more than half of all senators and 42 percent of House members had made the switch.​

-- ...Business leaders argue, for example, that they are not investing as much as they might in new jobs because they face so much uncertainty that they don't know what to expect from the government from one year to the next.

... this complexity and uncertainty is no accident, and that's because politicians in Washington have an interest in keeping business...​

Pass a tax law for five years and lobbyists won't need to come around with contributions for a long time; make it a one-year law and they'll be back next week. ...keep the code incomprehensible, and the voters won't know if they're getting hosed.​


But compelling national interest has a very specific legal meaning. It doesn't mean "I think things are bad."
That is true.

Well, see, now we've finally gotten to the point. Lobbying is NOT making donations or golf trips.
Are denying that these things happen and the lobbyist do them? Or are you trying to carefully define a term? Or what?
 
Re-re-posting this yet again.

Not re-posting my response from a while back.

That is true.

And you seem to be wildly abusing it.

Are denying that these things happen and the lobbyist do them? Or are you trying to carefully define a term? Or what?

I'm trying to define a term, obviously. Well, actually, I asked you to. You haven't succeeded yet.

Lobbyists do those things, but that doesn't make it "lobbying." Like you said, food comes from the sun, but it's not the sun.
 
This doesn't reveal the totals or where they came from.

This gives limits. It doesn't show how much money comes from real persons versus how much comes from artificial persons.

Yes it does. Scroll down. It shows the sources of the money with the limits for each source.

See where the chart says "individual may give" etc? Those are the sources. None others are legal. You won't find any source that isn't a person, or doesn't get its funding in turn from a person. Ultimately, only individuals provide funding for the system. Corporations and unions and governments are all explicitly banned from giving money to any of these, or to candidates.
 
So lobbyists do these things for the fun of it? Or because it helps them to persuade the elected officials?

Lobbyists drive to work in the morning, but that doesn't make driving lobbying. And many don't drive.

The point is that if you want to pass a law that forbids lobbyists from donating to campaigns, that wouldn't stop lobbying. If you want to talk about campaign donations, simply talk about them.

Like you said, food comes from the sun...
 
Last edited:
http://www.cfinst.org/data/pdf/VitalStats_t8.pdf

This shows that generally candidates get a plurality of their funding from artificial persons. I am not sure that actually helps your case that candidates fund themselves.

No it does not show that. It shows candidates getting a majority from individuals.

And a PAC or party is not an artificial person. A PAC is simply a fund that takes money from individuals and gives it to candidates. It is not normally incorporated. I don't know if parties are, but like we established, they give virtually nothing to candidates anyway.
 
Yes it does. Scroll down. It shows the sources of the money with the limits for each source.

See where the chart says "individual may give" etc? Those are the sources. None others are legal. You won't find any source that isn't a person, or doesn't get its funding in turn from a person. Ultimately, only individuals provide funding for the system. Corporations and unions and governments are all explicitly banned from giving money to any of these, or to candidates.
As I said, it shows the limits per each category. It doesn't show how many of each category did what. That is what you would need to show that "Most of the funding for our campaigns, despite the whining you may hear, comes from the people."

Further, the next source you cited shows that that assertion is false.
http://www.cfinst.org/data/pdf/VitalStats_t8.pdf
False. Most of the funding for our campaigns, despite the whining you may hear, comes from the people.
 
You used it to support the assertion that candidates funded themselves.

Uh, what? No.

Can they enter into contracts? Are they real persons?

Can only real persons enter into contracts?

Are all things that aren't real persons "artificial persons?"
 
Uh, what? No.
You can't find a single candidate who doesn't take money? (In the U.S. at least, candidates fund themselves and have only a small dependence on the parties). Or run yourself without taking money
Cite for this assertion please.
http://www.cfinst.org/data/pdf/VitalStats_t8.pdf

I'll believe you that you lost track of which assertion you were being asked about


Can only real persons enter into contracts?
No, artificial person can as well.
Are all things that aren't real persons "artificial persons?"
no, some things are not persons at all
 
You want the government to have complete control of election funding?

Yes, I want public regulations that prevent anonymous corporations from choosing our leaders for us.
 
I am not so hot on the public funds thingy. I am not that familiar with t either. But on its face, it sounds like a bad idea. I am open to changing my mind.

I would be comfortable with funding solely from the donations of individuals.

Public financing

"Other countries choose to use government funding to run campaigns. Funding campaigns from the government budget is widespread in South America and Europe.[7] The mechanisms for this can be quite varied, ranging from direct subsidy of political parties to government matching funds for certain types of private donations (often small donations) to exemption from fees of government services (e.g. postage) and many other systems as well. Supporters of government financing generally believe that the system decreases corruption; in addition, many proponents believe that government financing promotes other values, such as civic participation or greater faith in the political process. Not all government subsidies take the form of money; some systems require campaign materials (often air time on television) to be provided at very low rates to the candidates. Critics sometimes complain of the expense of the government financing systems. Libertarian critics of the system argue that government should not subsidize political speech. Other critics argue that government financing, with its emphasis on equalizing money resources, merely exaggerates differences in non-monetary resources."
Campaign finance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Benefits of Fair Elections

• Makes candidates and elected officials accountable only to the public interest, rather than powerful special interests

• Saves taxpayer dollars by reducing inappropriate giveaways to campaign contributors

• Makes elections fair by leveling the playing field for candidates

• Allows politicians to spend less time fundraising, so they can spend more time addressing national priorities

• Gives all citizens, regardless of wealth, a fair shot to be heard and participate in every step of the democratic process

• Reinvigorates our democracy by helping to reengage voters and increasing voter turnout."
Benefits of Clean Elections | Campaign Finance Reform - Common Cause
 
I am not so hot on the public funds thingy. I am not that familiar with t either. But on its face, it sounds like a bad idea. I am open to changing my mind.

I would be comfortable with funding solely from the donations of individuals.

I'm not, because we've already seen that buying our representatives comes with strings attached. A lot of people have a lot of money to buy a lot of power and influence. However, if every candidate received public funding in equal amounts, along with a strong and frequent batch of public debates... tv ads forbidden... then we would actually have a government of the people, instead of the "best government money can buy."

As it stands, rich people can buy their own congressional or senatoral seats, or even the governorship! California's top job was almost purchased by Meg Witman, a totally unqualified individual with credentials of already running two huge corporations into bankruptcy.

Not acceptable.
 
Last edited:
I'm not, because we've already seen that buying our representatives comes with strings attached. A lot of people have a lot of money to buy a lot of power and influence. However, if every candidate received public funding in equal amounts, along with a strong and frequent batch of public debates... tv ads forbidden... then we would actually have a government of the people, instead of the "best government money can buy."

As it stands, rich people can buy their own congressional or senatoral seats, or even the governorship! California's top job was almost purchased by Meg Witman, a totally unqualified individual with credentials of already running two huge corporations into bankruptcy.

Not acceptable.

key word: almost.

proving money doesn't mean an election win.
 
Back
Top Bottom