• 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!

Another new amendment...how would you vote?

Would you vote for an Amendment like this?


  • Total voters
    34
This amendment would ban all super pacs and companies from donating to candidates and would only allow individuals to donate funds to a candidate that they support. The max funds that they can donate would be $1,000 per candidate that they support. In addition as a second clause/paragraph no candidate can spend more than $1 million dollars to campaign for their election, all of it must come from donations of individuals 18 and older.

More than likely, yes. A million dollars seems a little bit low, so I might raise that cap some.
 
Completely against it. I'm not good with telling other people and companies how to spend their money.

Dollars can only do so much. People still vote under their own volition, and you get the same number of votes as any member of the Walton family - one.

I was reading through the posts in here, clicking the "like" button when I happened on one I liked, all the while waiting until I got to the end of the thread to post, virtually word for word, exactly what you posted here.
 
You couldn't run a Presidential campaign in Denmark for $1,000,000. Staff and transportation costs alone would explode this budget.

Why does the presidential candidate have to travel about the country anyway? Just interview them on TV, pay for the interviews the same way the broadcasters pay for everything from soap operas to ball games, then stage debates paid for the same way, and let the voters hear first hand what the candidates have to say on the issues. That has to be better than hearing ads repeated ad nauseum telling us how terrible the opposition is and repeating half truths and outright lies to mislead the voters.

After all the money is spent, and all the "speech" is broadcast, the voters still don't really know much about the candidates or where they really stand on issues. A lot of what they think they know is false.
 
This amendment would ban all super pacs and companies from donating to candidates and would only allow individuals to donate funds to a candidate that they support. The max funds that they can donate would be $1,000 per candidate that they support. In addition as a second clause/paragraph no candidate can spend more than $1 million dollars to campaign for their election, all of it must come from donations of individuals 18 and older.

Using your above math, after the first 1,000 people have donated their maximum $1,000/person then the candidate is done with their fundraising. That $1,000,000 would not even cover the cost of a typical Superbowl ad. How would you possibly enforce such a thing?
 
Yesterday, I voted yes. Now I want to vote no.
 
Absolutely. It would be one of the best things to happen to our country.
 
A million should be plenty if TV ads were eliminated. In fact, limiting campaigns to a million would pretty much preclude the current practice of spreading BS through ad campaigns.

It shouldn't matter who donates either, as pretty much any serious candidate could raise a million nationwide. That amounts to only a third of a cent per capita, after all.

So, really, all you'd have to do is limit what can be spent on campaigns.

Really? The cost of one presidential visit to endorse a candidate would then exceed their spending limit. ;)
 
Like some people have noted here you can't, realistically, take all the money out of elections but you can dramatically restructure it, so that it has a minimal impact.
 
Why does the presidential candidate have to travel about the country anyway? Just interview them on TV, pay for the interviews the same way the broadcasters pay for everything from soap operas to ball games, then stage debates paid for the same way, and let the voters hear first hand what the candidates have to say on the issues. That has to be better than hearing ads repeated ad nauseum telling us how terrible the opposition is and repeating half truths and outright lies to mislead the voters.

After all the money is spent, and all the "speech" is broadcast, the voters still don't really know much about the candidates or where they really stand on issues. A lot of what they think they know is false.

Because people like to meet the candidates, it affords the opportunity to give speeches to diverse audiences, it allows for comments to be made to groups without being under the glare of a TV interview, etc. Policy speeches and discussions are regularly rolled out at conventions, closed gatherings, college campuses, and innumerable other venues. Shunting every candidate to a series of CNN, FOX, and MSNBC interviews seems like a positively awful (maybe even dystopian) way to conduct an election.

I'm not overly sympathetic to the argument about hearing ads ad nausea. It's annoying I'll admit but you can always hit mute or change the channel. It's a small price to pay.
 
Nope, I wouldn't support it. I want the elimination of *ALL* funding for particular candidates, I want publically-funded campaigns where anyone can donate to the process and at a certain point, that money is distributed to all legally-registered candidates. Even the playing field so nobody can buy their way into office and have to run on merit, not money.
 
Because people like to meet the candidates, it affords the opportunity to give speeches to diverse audiences, it allows for comments to be made to groups without being under the glare of a TV interview, etc. Policy speeches and discussions are regularly rolled out at conventions, closed gatherings, college campuses, and innumerable other venues. Shunting every candidate to a series of CNN, FOX, and MSNBC interviews seems like a positively awful (maybe even dystopian) way to conduct an election.

I'm not overly sympathetic to the argument about hearing ads ad nausea. It's annoying I'll admit but you can always hit mute or change the channel. It's a small price to pay.

Except that all those ads are paid for by special interest money, and those special interests all expect to be paid back in one way or another.

As for speeches to specific groups, that's where the candidate is best able to tailor his stance on issues to what he thinks that group would support. His position is likely to shift dramatically when speaking to a different group, so how are we to know where he really stands?
 
Yet another attempt to silence the voice of the People in order to fix the problem of crooked politicians. People, the problem isn't the presence of the money, it's the fact that we have a system that rewards being bought. FIX THE PROBLEM. This idiocy is like making wallets illegal to stop pickpockets. The problem isn't the presence of the money, the problem is that we reward candidates that get bought. There are several ways you can attack his problem without silencing the voice of the People. Term limits is my favorite, but it's not the only way. Making all campaign contributions completely anonymous would break the connection between the donor and the candidate. Making all campaign contributions 100% public and following that up with monitoring of all actions taken by candidates that reflect undo bias towards high dollar donors and making those decisions public knowledge. There are a lot of ways we can fix this, but silencing our voice should NOT EVER be considered to be one of them.

For those who think that corporations shouldn't have a voice: The cry of the Founding Father of "No taxation without representation" comes to mind. Since corps. pay taxes but don't (and shouldn't) vote, this is their voice in the process. If you're going to tax them, then you should give them voice in the process.
 
This amendment would ban all super pacs and companies from donating to candidates and would only allow individuals to donate funds to a candidate that they support. The max funds that they can donate would be $1,000 per candidate that they support. In addition as a second clause/paragraph no candidate can spend more than $1 million dollars to campaign for their election, all of it must come from donations of individuals 18 and older.

You should think for a moment how futile this would be.

If candidates were limited like this no problem except that then the superpacs and other wealthy contributers would simply use the massive financing independently.

In other words instead of giving 10 million to a candidates campaign you spend the 10 million on your own private campaign in support of the same candidate.
 
You should think for a moment how futile this would be.

If candidates were limited like this no problem except that then the superpacs and other wealthy contributers would simply use the massive financing independently.

In other words instead of giving 10 million to a candidates campaign you spend the 10 million on your own private campaign in support of the same candidate.


There is always a way around everything, isn't there, even a way to keep politicians from being bought.
 
Back
Top Bottom