Do you support the campaign contribution limit increase?

Multiple choice, public vote poll


As the media devoted all its attention on the Ferguson and NYC police incidents, Congress quietly passed a $1.1 trillion dollar budget extension without dispute. USUALLY, these budget extensions are huge political, partisan and heavy media coverage fights.

For how fast and silently it passed, for the last couple days I wondered what the two political parties had snuck by during what was essentially a news blackout about the government. Now we know.

The two political parties agreed to raise the amount of political money rich people can give to the political parties by a lot.

Campaign finance watchdog groups Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center and Common Cause, flagged the provision about an hour after the appropriations bill was released.“This makes the Great Train Robbery look like a petty misdemeanor,” said Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer. “These provisions have never been considered by the House or Senate, and were never even publicly mentioned before today.”
While national party committees have a contribution limit of $32,400 per year for each donor, the three new accounts would have their own separate, higher contribution limits — up to $97,200 each per year. A political party's two congressional campaign committees that raise money for House and Senate candidates would also have two of those three accounts at their donors' disposal.
In effect, that means that an individual could give up to $648,000 to the Republican National Committee or the Democratic National Committee during each two-year election cycle, and the House and Senate committees for each party could each collect $453,600 from one donor.
A wealthy political contributor could therefore give a total of more than $1.55 million to a national party through its three committees.
Parties cut deal to open spigot of campaign cash | TheHill

So in a 2 year cycle a husband and wife team can contribute over $3,000,000 - and for a 4 year presidential cycle over $6 million dollars.

We learned last week that an ambassadorship sells for only about $500,000. So $6,000,000 will buy a lot.

Of course, this massively protects incumbents who tote the party line and is a massive hurdle for anyone running for Congress - or re-election - that doesn't. We now know the reaction of Congress to the midterms in which incumbents were actually defeated. To make their political parties for-sale and force any candidate - incumbent or not - to do exactly as their political party dictates. The Republicans and Democratic politicians did reach a deal. A massive increase in money for their re-elections.

I vote yes because there should be no cap and on a side note, if you want to initiate a kickstarter to buy Dick Cheney to US ambassadorship to the United Arab Emirates, I will donate a dollar.

joko104 said:

Multiple choice, public vote poll


As the media devoted all its attention on the Ferguson and NYC police incidents, Congress quietly passed a $1.1 trillion dollar budget extension without dispute. USUALLY, these budget extensions are huge political, partisan and heavy media coverage fights.

For how fast and silently it passed, for the last couple days I wondered what the two political parties had snuck by during what was essentially a news blackout about the government. Now we know.

The two political parties agreed to raise the amount of political money rich people can give to the political parties by a lot.

Campaign finance watchdog groups Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center and Common Cause, flagged the provision about an hour after the appropriations bill was released.“This makes the Great Train Robbery look like a petty misdemeanor,” said Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer. “These provisions have never been considered by the House or Senate, and were never even publicly mentioned before today.”
While national party committees have a contribution limit of $32,400 per year for each donor, the three new accounts would have their own separate, higher contribution limits — up to $97,200 each per year. A political party's two congressional campaign committees that raise money for House and Senate candidates would also have two of those three accounts at their donors' disposal.
In effect, that means that an individual could give up to $648,000 to the Republican National Committee or the Democratic National Committee during each two-year election cycle, and the House and Senate committees for each party could each collect $453,600 from one donor.
A wealthy political contributor could therefore give a total of more than $1.55 million to a national party through its three committees.
Parties cut deal to open spigot of campaign cash | TheHill

So in a 2 year cycle a husband and wife team can contribute over $3,000,000 - and for a 4 year presidential cycle over $6 million dollars.

We learned last week that an ambassadorship sells for only about $500,000. So $6,000,000 will buy a lot.

Of course, this massively protects incumbents who tote the party line and is a massive hurdle for anyone running for Congress - or re-election - that doesn't. We now know the reaction of Congress to the midterms in which incumbents were actually defeated. To make their political parties for-sale and force any candidate - incumbent or not - to do exactly as their political party dictates. The Republicans and Democratic politicians did reach a deal. A massive increase in money for their re-elections.

Click to expand...

Considering the alternative is to shut down the government at this stage if this doesn't pass?

If you think that spending limits will hurt incumbents then you are simply not thinking clearly. In case you haven't noticed, Obama has been fund raising almost non-stop since 2012 and he can't even run for re-election.

joko104 said:

Multiple choice, public vote poll

As the media devoted all its attention on the Ferguson and NYC police incidents, Congress quietly passed a $1.1 trillion dollar budget extension without dispute. USUALLY, these budget extensions are huge political, partisan and heavy media coverage fights.

For how fast and silently it passed, for the last couple days I wondered what the two political parties had snuck by during what was essentially a news blackout about the government. Now we know.

The two political parties agreed to raise the amount of political money rich people can give to the political parties by a lot.

Campaign finance watchdog groups Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center and Common Cause, flagged the provision about an hour after the appropriations bill was released.“This makes the Great Train Robbery look like a petty misdemeanor,” said Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer. “These provisions have never been considered by the House or Senate, and were never even publicly mentioned before today.”
While national party committees have a contribution limit of $32,400 per year for each donor, the three new accounts would have their own separate, higher contribution limits — up to $97,200 each per year. A political party's two congressional campaign committees that raise money for House and Senate candidates would also have two of those three accounts at their donors' disposal.
In effect, that means that an individual could give up to $648,000 to the Republican National Committee or the Democratic National Committee during each two-year election cycle, and the House and Senate committees for each party could each collect $453,600 from one donor.
A wealthy political contributor could therefore give a total of more than $1.55 million to a national party through its three committees.
Parties cut deal to open spigot of campaign cash | TheHill

So in a 2 year cycle a husband and wife team can contribute over $3,000,000 - and for a 4 year presidential cycle over $6 million dollars.

We learned last week that an ambassadorship sells for only about $500,000. So $6,000,000 will buy a lot.

Of course, this massively protects incumbents who tote the party line and is a massive hurdle for anyone running for Congress - or re-election - that doesn't. We now know the reaction of Congress to the midterms in which incumbents were actually defeated. To make their political parties for-sale and force any candidate - incumbent or not - to do exactly as their political party dictates. The Republicans and Democratic politicians did reach a deal. A massive increase in money for their re-elections.

Click to expand...

Considering the alternative is to shut down the government at this stage if this doesn't pass?

joko104 said:

Multiple choice, public vote poll


As the media devoted all its attention on the Ferguson and NYC police incidents, Congress quietly passed a $1.1 trillion dollar budget extension without dispute. USUALLY, these budget extensions are huge political, partisan and heavy media coverage fights.

For how fast and silently it passed, for the last couple days I wondered what the two political parties had snuck by during what was essentially a news blackout about the government. Now we know.

The two political parties agreed to raise the amount of political money rich people can give to the political parties by a lot.

Campaign finance watchdog groups Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center and Common Cause, flagged the provision about an hour after the appropriations bill was released.“This makes the Great Train Robbery look like a petty misdemeanor,” said Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer. “These provisions have never been considered by the House or Senate, and were never even publicly mentioned before today.”
While national party committees have a contribution limit of $32,400 per year for each donor, the three new accounts would have their own separate, higher contribution limits — up to $97,200 each per year. A political party's two congressional campaign committees that raise money for House and Senate candidates would also have two of those three accounts at their donors' disposal.
In effect, that means that an individual could give up to $648,000 to the Republican National Committee or the Democratic National Committee during each two-year election cycle, and the House and Senate committees for each party could each collect $453,600 from one donor.
A wealthy political contributor could therefore give a total of more than $1.55 million to a national party through its three committees.
Parties cut deal to open spigot of campaign cash | TheHill

So in a 2 year cycle a husband and wife team can contribute over $3,000,000 - and for a 4 year presidential cycle over $6 million dollars.

We learned last week that an ambassadorship sells for only about $500,000. So $6,000,000 will buy a lot.

Of course, this massively protects incumbents who tote the party line and is a massive hurdle for anyone running for Congress - or re-election - that doesn't. We now know the reaction of Congress to the midterms in which incumbents were actually defeated. To make their political parties for-sale and force any candidate - incumbent or not - to do exactly as their political party dictates. The Republicans and Democratic politicians did reach a deal. A massive increase in money for their re-elections.

Click to expand...

They should raise eliminate caps. People should wear hats instead.

"Other"... We would not be having this conversation but prior Congressional actions on their own self serving intentions forced us to. No, we should not be increasing campaign contribution limits. What we should be doing is appealing to Congress to correct decades of mismanagement with all the "status" assignments for organizations which pool money and buy politicians like Johns buy prostitutes.

As an example, we would have never had the "Citizens United" ruling if we properly identified a political action group from a social welfare group. But since that is a major gravy train for ole (D) and (R) do not expect it to happen, anyone really shocked that a backroom budget deal included upping limits on something they directly benefit from? We might as well ask pedophiles to re-write DSM guidelines for us on sexual disorders.

Options 2 and 4. The very concept of campaign donations are contrary to the idea of free and fair elections.

joko104 said:

Multiple choice, public vote poll


As the media devoted all its attention on the Ferguson and NYC police incidents, Congress quietly passed a $1.1 trillion dollar budget extension without dispute. USUALLY, these budget extensions are huge political, partisan and heavy media coverage fights.

For how fast and silently it passed, for the last couple days I wondered what the two political parties had snuck by during what was essentially a news blackout about the government. Now we know.

The two political parties agreed to raise the amount of political money rich people can give to the political parties by a lot.

Campaign finance watchdog groups Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center and Common Cause, flagged the provision about an hour after the appropriations bill was released.“This makes the Great Train Robbery look like a petty misdemeanor,” said Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer. “These provisions have never been considered by the House or Senate, and were never even publicly mentioned before today.”
While national party committees have a contribution limit of $32,400 per year for each donor, the three new accounts would have their own separate, higher contribution limits — up to $97,200 each per year. A political party's two congressional campaign committees that raise money for House and Senate candidates would also have two of those three accounts at their donors' disposal.
In effect, that means that an individual could give up to $648,000 to the Republican National Committee or the Democratic National Committee during each two-year election cycle, and the House and Senate committees for each party could each collect $453,600 from one donor.
A wealthy political contributor could therefore give a total of more than $1.55 million to a national party through its three committees.
Parties cut deal to open spigot of campaign cash | TheHill

So in a 2 year cycle a husband and wife team can contribute over $3,000,000 - and for a 4 year presidential cycle over $6 million dollars.

We learned last week that an ambassadorship sells for only about $500,000. So $6,000,000 will buy a lot.

Of course, this massively protects incumbents who tote the party line and is a massive hurdle for anyone running for Congress - or re-election - that doesn't. We now know the reaction of Congress to the midterms in which incumbents were actually defeated. To make their political parties for-sale and force any candidate - incumbent or not - to do exactly as their political party dictates. The Republicans and Democratic politicians did reach a deal. A massive increase in money for their re-elections.

Click to expand...

No one should be allowed to donate any money/assets to political campaigns, and no political campaign should be allowed to spend any money/assets.

And no ****ing renaming **** now, either.

If you're running for or in political office, you may not spend any money/assets nor receive any money/assets. In fact, you may not do anything with money/assets you already had.


Edit: Yes, I am serious.

every candidate should get the same amount of free air space on TV and Radio.

there shouldn't be any political contributions from corporations or unions or PACs or any of that stuff.

it's not free speech, it's the purchasing of offices and it has done tremendous harm to the electoral process in this country.

I did read we are no longer subsidizing National Conventions - which is fantastic.
Both for monetary and policy consdierations, the taxpayers should not be paying for partisan politics.

I'm fine with it - SCOTUS reads limiting money is limiting political speech ( most protected speech) -
and any limitations are easily maneuvered around. So on balance -go for it.

joko104 said:

Multiple choice, public vote poll


As the media devoted all its attention on the Ferguson and NYC police incidents, Congress quietly passed a $1.1 trillion dollar budget extension without dispute. USUALLY, these budget extensions are huge political, partisan and heavy media coverage fights.

For how fast and silently it passed, for the last couple days I wondered what the two political parties had snuck by during what was essentially a news blackout about the government. Now we know.

The two political parties agreed to raise the amount of political money rich people can give to the political parties by a lot.

Campaign finance watchdog groups Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center and Common Cause, flagged the provision about an hour after the appropriations bill was released.“This makes the Great Train Robbery look like a petty misdemeanor,” said Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer. “These provisions have never been considered by the House or Senate, and were never even publicly mentioned before today.”
While national party committees have a contribution limit of $32,400 per year for each donor, the three new accounts would have their own separate, higher contribution limits — up to $97,200 each per year. A political party's two congressional campaign committees that raise money for House and Senate candidates would also have two of those three accounts at their donors' disposal.
In effect, that means that an individual could give up to $648,000 to the Republican National Committee or the Democratic National Committee during each two-year election cycle, and the House and Senate committees for each party could each collect $453,600 from one donor.
A wealthy political contributor could therefore give a total of more than $1.55 million to a national party through its three committees.
Parties cut deal to open spigot of campaign cash | TheHill

So in a 2 year cycle a husband and wife team can contribute over $3,000,000 - and for a 4 year presidential cycle over $6 million dollars.

We learned last week that an ambassadorship sells for only about $500,000. So $6,000,000 will buy a lot.

Of course, this massively protects incumbents who tote the party line and is a massive hurdle for anyone running for Congress - or re-election - that doesn't. We now know the reaction of Congress to the midterms in which incumbents were actually defeated. To make their political parties for-sale and force any candidate - incumbent or not - to do exactly as their political party dictates. The Republicans and Democratic politicians did reach a deal. A massive increase in money for their re-elections.

Click to expand...

Something that makes it that much harder for your average Joe to run for office. I say no.I could care less if was done in secrete or out in the open.