Another new amendment...how would you vote?

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.

Kal'Stang said:

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.

Click to expand...

I whole heartily back the sentiments of the amendment. The cap of a million dollars seems awful low considering that Romney spent a billion and Obama spent a billion in their presidential run in 2012. I doubt a million dollars would buy you much campaign ads in certain media markets like New York or Los Angles. Now a million dollars might go a long way in a House race, not far in a senate race and nowhere in a presidential race.

What I would like to see added is: Only a living, breathing citizen of the United States can donate to a political candidate and that living, breathing citizen must be able to vote for that candidate or else donating is prohibited.

But yes, an amendment that would bring some common sense back to elections funding and spending, I would support.

Perotista said:

I whole heartily back the sentiments of the amendment. The cap of a million dollars seems awful low considering that Romney spent a billion and Obama spent a billion in their presidential run in 2012. I doubt a million dollars would buy you much campaign ads in certain media markets like New York or Los Angles. Now a million dollars might go a long way in a House race, not far in a senate race and nowhere in a presidential race.

What I would like to see added is: Only a living, breathing citizen of the United States can donate to a political candidate and that living, breathing citizen must be able to vote for that candidate or else donating is prohibited.

But yes, an amendment that would bring some common sense back to elections funding and spending, I would support.

Click to expand...

so what to do when 90% of the main stream media becomes part of the campaign for one of the candidates?

TurtleDude said:

so what to do when 90% of the main stream media becomes part of the campaign for one of the candidates?

Click to expand...

I suppose you could bring back the fairness doctrine.

Perotista said:

I suppose you could bring back the fairness doctrine.

Click to expand...

ah, that violates the constitution as well. we need less government control. full disclosure but no limits

Kal'Stang said:

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.

Click to expand...

I would support the 1st part, but not the 2nd which I would change to say that all contributions must be mailed in separately which would eliminate "bundling"

And I agree with Perotista's "only living, breathing humans can contribute"

TurtleDude said:

ah, that violates the constitution as well. we need less government control. full disclosure but no limits

Click to expand...

I am all for full disclosure. I could live with no limits as long as donations could only be made to candidates that the donor could vote for. I get tired of reading about someone in California spending 10 million dollars trying to influence a race in Georgia. Political races in Georgia is something that only georgian's should be able to decide, not some one from California or where ever.

sangha said:

I would support the 1st part, but not the 2nd which I would change to say that all contributions must be mailed in separately which would eliminate "bundling"

And I agree with Perotista's "only living, breathing humans can contribute"

Click to expand...

Yep, that too.

Perotista said:

I am all for full disclosure. I could live with no limits as long as donations could only be made to candidates that the donor could vote for. I get tired of reading about someone in California spending 10 million dollars trying to influence a race in Georgia. Political races in Georgia is something that only georgian's should be able to decide, not some one from California or where ever.

Click to expand...

well the 17th amendment made senators beholden to national special interest groups. I for example, abhor federal intrusions on my 2A rights. SO I give money to senators who vote against stuff like the Feinstein attempts to ban guns even if I cannot vote for them. Since a senator in Alaska or Ga is just as important a vote as my Senators in Ohio, why should my rights be limited as to who I can support.

NOW I can see an argument as to state officials-for example what goes on in Idaho doesn't really affect me. But what NY or California politicians do on federal legislation surely does

TurtleDude said:

well the 17th amendment made senators beholden to national special interest groups. I for example, abhor federal intrusions on my 2A rights. SO I give money to senators who vote against stuff like the Feinstein attempts to ban guns even if I cannot vote for them. Since a senator in Alaska or Ga is just as important a vote as my Senators in Ohio, why should my rights be limited as to who I can support.

NOW I can see an argument as to state officials-for example what goes on in Idaho doesn't really affect me. But what NY or California politicians do on federal legislation surely does

Click to expand...

I see what you are getting at, but it still irks the she-it out of me.

Perotista said:

I see what you are getting at, but it still irks the she-it out of me.

Click to expand...

what irks me is

1) the media being mainly shills for Obama in the last two elections

2) big time entertainment doing the same thing

3) unions giving 90% of their money to Democrats

and then telling groups like say the NRA or other anti leftwing groups that they shouldn't be able to counter those pro leftwing supporters.

A million is probably too low for a national campaign, but limits could certainly be set based on which office the election is for. Alternately, completely public funding of elections. I don't think a simple solution is going to do it, though. Campaign finance is a complex situation. Suppose an organization legitimately wanted to run issue ads, like over fracking? Suppose the PAC really wasn't coordinating with a candidate? We all know that they do, but what if they didn't? What if Colbert took his superPAC and supported a candidate he had never met?

I would love to see a lot less money influencing elections, but those same rules shouldn't stop a concerned citizen from printing up pamphlets and distributing them.

If we don't get some serious campaign finance reform NOW, then we can kiss what's left of our representative democracy goodbye.

Phys251 said:

If we don't get some serious campaign finance reform NOW, then we can kiss what's left of our representative democracy goodbye.

Click to expand...

LOL-oh the Drama!

get rid of the 17th Amendment and that will get rid of SOME of the problems as to the Senate. as to presidential elections-good luck. and as Paschendale correctly insinuated, free speech is at stake.

TurtleDude said:

LOL-oh the Drama!

get rid of the 17th Amendment and that will get rid of SOME of the problems as to the Senate. as to presidential elections-good luck. and as Paschendale correctly insinuated, free speech is at stake.

Click to expand...

I'm not making this up, Turtle. You think that the average congressperson listens to his or her constituents more than corporate lobbyists?

Wal-Mart, Exxon, Lockheed-Martin, and the many other corporations have every right to ask their representatives and senators to vote as they want them to. But when that influence involves millions of dollars exchanged in secret, then we have a real problem.

Phys251 said:

I'm not making this up, Turtle. You think that the average congressperson listens to his or her constituents more than corporate lobbyists?

Wal-Mart, Exxon, Lockheed-Martin, and the many other corporations have every right to ask their representatives and senators to vote as they want them to. But when that influence involves millions of dollars exchanged in secret, then we have a real problem.

Click to expand...

what I believe and what I think is that you can pass this silly amendment and NOTHING is going to change

Kal'Stang said:

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.

Click to expand...

I like the idea and if it is a choice between this and nothing I'd choose this, but in all honesty I don't think it goes far enough. It doesn't prevent former campaign sponsors from spending directly. I think there needs to be a period leading up to an election during which such expenditures should be severely limited.

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.

Kal'Stang said:

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.

Click to expand...

I picked other. I posted a similar idea in another thread.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-co...on-prevent-influence-big-money-elections.html

Section 1.Donors will be limited to donating a $2,500 maximum per candidate in the district/precinct the donor is registered to vote in. No one will be allowed to donate to candidates outside their district/precincts.For example this means people in California can not donate to governor races in Alabama and people in New York City can not donate to mayoral elections in Tulsa.

Section 2.Individuals may form groups and only donate to candidates in their district/precinct and those group members may not donate as a individual.For example you can donate to a can donate to candidate in your district either as a individual or a member of a group, but not both.

a. Seeing how section 1 applies that means what a group can donate will be limited by the number of members in that district of that candidate and only donate to candidates what ever the group's members in that candidate's district willingly donated to that group.. If hypothetically there is five planned parenthood members in a city counselor candidate's district then the most amount Planned parent could donate to that candidate is $12,500 5x $2,500= $12,500 if all five members donated the max of $2,500.However if 2 only donated the max ,2 donate half the max and one did not donate then that means planned parenthood can only donate is $7,500 to that candidate.

b.While a company/corporation is a group of persons it's members IE employees are not part of that group for a cause other than getting a paycheck.So employers and employees can not solicit or donate to each other.

c.Any contributions to a group must be specially marked that they for donating to candidates in that member's voting district. People sometimes have a difference of opinion from the group they are part of.

Section 3.Seeing how television stations/networks are privately owned entities they are banned from propping up one candidate over another.They must give equal positive and negative time to all candidates or non at all.All debates must include all candidates or no debates happen at all on TV. This means if candidate A appears on a popular talk show or tv show then so must candidates B,C,D, and and other candidates in that race.If a news outlet does a positive story on Candidate B then it must do a equally positive story on Candidates A,C,D, and other candidates. If a network does a negative story on Candidate C, then it must do a equally negative story on Candidates A,B,D, and other candidates.This also applies to tax payer funded networks since governments should never be in the business of propping up candidates.

Kal'Stang said:

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.

Click to expand...

Amendments should not be used to solve transient problems. While I hate the influence of money in politics as much as any one, I think the repercussions from such an amendment would outweigh the benefits, especially as a precedent to what amendments should be used for.

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.

Kal'Stang said:

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.

Click to expand...

It would be impossible to run a campaign for a country the size of the United States for $1,000,000. Even for a dictator trying to mobilize the vote that would be an impressive feat. Besides this is still all an abridgment of speech.

Dittohead not! said:

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.

Click to expand...

You couldn't run a Presidential campaign in Denmark for $1,000,000. Staff and transportation costs alone would explode this budget.

Kal'Stang said:

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.

Click to expand...

Liberals would never go for it because it would eliminate super pac money from unions.

Kal'Stang said:

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.

Click to expand...

I don't know. If you are talking about the Presidency, you are talking about a pretty important race and there is a lot of information and analysis to transmit. I am not sure I would feel comfortable in restricting the funding and funding process that much and preventing people from talking their mind and putting their money, where their mouth is?