Should the ability to donate to campaigns be restricted to people one can vote for?

TurtleDude said:

I couldn't care less. I don't want a society where the left wing media is unchallenged. The amount of free advertising they give left wing causes is tremendous.

Click to expand...

So when presented with evidence you just ignore it. How exactly would this help the left wing media? They would be banned from donations as well.

Carjosse said:

So when presented with evidence you just ignore it. How exactly would this help the left wing media? They would be banned from donations as well.

Click to expand...

anecdotal evidence of one area proves nothing. who pushes for these limits usually? those who have big labor and the media behind them. Free speech is more important than a foreigner's desire to impose controls on American citizens.

TurtleDude said:

anecdotal evidence of one area proves nothing. who pushes for these limits usually? those who have big labor and the media behind them. Free speech is more important than a foreigner's desire to impose controls on American citizens.

Click to expand...

I gave multiple examples, those are not anecdotal. Why would big labour support this? They would lose a lot of power. So for some reason the right wing media is fine with legal bribery, because it is paid for by the corporations and people who gain the most from buying politicians.

Carjosse said:

I gave multiple examples, those are not anecdotal. Why would big labour support this? They would lose a lot of power. So for some reason the right wing media is fine with legal bribery, because it is paid for by the corporations and people who gain the most from buying politicians.

Click to expand...

your calling campaign contributions bribery is just too stupid. so you are saying some "bribery" is ok but at a certain point it becomes bad? both sides have plenty of money. Most restrictions end up favoring one side vs the other. I prefer no such rules and let each side compete equally to "bribe" the politicians they support

Carjosse said:

I think your whole primary system should be just be thrown out and solely governed by the parties. Other Western countries regulate political donations and do not see these effects.

Click to expand...

Campaign finance and who runs the parties are two separate, though related issues.

I think your whole primary system should be just be thrown out and solely governed by the parties.

Click to expand...

I don't want primaries to be solely governed by the parties, because I just went through an election cycle and watched as the Democrats rigged their own primary against a superior candidate. I may have misunderstood what you just said, but I'm not about to support giving the Dem leadership even more power to do that again.

Other Western countries regulate political donations and do not see these effects.

Click to expand...

Campaign finance reform is front and center on the progressive agenda, even above medicare-for-all, a fifteen-dollar minimum-wage, and treating climate change as if it were a WWII-level threat. We used to regulate campaign donations, but those regulations were whittled away, and the two major parties have set up laws that make it impossible for other parties to gain any sort of foothold. Citizen's United was the big one, where the Supreme Court basically ruled that corporations are people, and that money is speech.

Bit by bit, progressives are winning primaries all over the country, and these are the people that are most likely to reverse this state of affairs, but it's going to take quite a bit of time and fighting before we can stand toe-to-toe with the corporate establishment. The result of Bernie's loss during the Democratic primary is that much of the left still has a fire lit under it's ass. I'm predicting that most or even every 'Justice Democrat' that's won their primary will win in the general, though that's not yet enough to offer anything resembling a real resistance.

TurtleDude said:

your calling campaign contributions bribery is just too stupid. so you are saying some "bribery" is ok but at a certain point it becomes bad? both sides have plenty of money. Most restrictions end up favoring one side vs the other. I prefer no such rules and let each side compete equally to "bribe" the politicians they support

Click to expand...

Well parties still need to be funded because I do not see America implementing publicly funded elections or party dues. And as long as it is done in small amounts say $100-$200, by the American people directly, I do not see the problem with that. This would heavily affect both sides, Democrats and Republicans would both lose their major donors. They would have to rely on the people who actually vote for them.

Carjosse said:

Well parties still need to be funded because I do not see America implementing publicly funded elections or party dues. And as long as it is done in small amounts say $100-$200, by the American people directly, I do not see the problem with that. This would heavily affect both sides, Democrats and Republicans would both lose their major donors. They would have to rely on the people who actually vote for them.

Click to expand...

why should you care? I don't give a rat's ass how elections or candidates are funded in other countries

if we got rid of the 17th amendment (another progressive scourge) senators would be less beholden to special interests as well

Rogue Valley said:

Indeed. Like France. Each candidate is only allowed x amount of francs for the campaign.

That's what the US needs. Citizens United has been devastating.

Click to expand...

Your information is dated.

Bullseye said:

No, mostly the represent ideologies. They don't give a crap about local people or their concerns.

Click to expand...

Oy vey!
Yes, really.
They represent the ideologies/best interests (in regards to the business/union/organization) of the citizens they represent.
Do you really not understand that?

Give a crap about local people and their concerns?
iLOL Nonsensical arguement.
Even locals don't "give a crap" about what other locals are concerned about.
That translates to businesses as well.
eg: Local business has their needs and concerns and they petition to have certain laws made or support the ideas that a local politician has because it benefits them and their business, regardless of the other local people and their concerns.

---

vegas giants said:

Its a simple question.


What if your company does not grant you the right to donate to a campaign? LOL


Can you answer it directly please?

Click to expand...

iLOL

I am not going to answer your irrelevant question.

Let me help you out.
This is the topic of this thread; "Should the ability to donate to campaigns be restricted to people one can vote for?"
Try sticking to it.

The only way I can see this being an actual issue, is if the person donating is not a citizen.

That would be my only problem. However we have dozens of groups that do so every year, so that would be a rather hollow problem to have at this point.

Excon said:

Oy vey!
Yes, really.
They represent the ideologies/best interests (in regards to the business/union/organization) of the citizens they represent.
Do you really not understand that?

Click to expand...

Yes, on a national level, but they are totally ignorant of the specific local situation. They favor the candidate who supports national goals which may not align with local values.

excon said:

Give a crap about local people and their concerns?
iLOL Nonsensical arguement.
Even locals don't "give a crap" about what other locals are concerned about.

Click to expand...

Huh?

excon said:

That translates to businesses as well.
eg: Local business has their needs and concerns and they petition to have certain laws made or support the ideas that a local politician has because it benefits them and their business, regardless of the other local people and their concerns.

Click to expand...

Of course, the petition to their local representative who hopefully wasn't bought and paid for by some super pac that wants his vote on some specific issues.

Bullseye said:

Yes, on a national level, but they are totally ignorant of the specific local situation. They favor the candidate who supports national goals which may not align with local values.

Click to expand...

No. At a local level as well, or did you not understand the fictitious example I gave you?
There you go again with the local values bs. Local values are not a monolithic thing.

If these locals agreed to let in an international business, then that business should have a local voice as well.

Bullseye said:

Huh?

Click to expand...

Huh what? Why were you unable to follow? The first bit applies to what came after.
Clearly you split up the paragraph before fully understanding what was said.

Bullseye said:

Of course, the petition to their local representative who hopefully wasn't bought and paid for by some super pac that wants his vote on some specific issues.

Click to expand...

You are missing the point and letting your own bias show.

You haven't shown corruption.
Your position that they do not care about the locals is irrelevant.
And way not to show you understand that even locals do not always agree with one another.

Excon said:

No. At a local level as well, or did you not understand the fictitious example I gave you?
There you go again with the local values bs. Local values are not a monolithic thing.

If these locals agreed to let in an international business, then that business should have a local voice as well.


Huh what? Why were you unable to follow? The first bit applies to what came after.
Clearly you split up the paragraph before fully understanding what was said.


You are missing the point and letting your own bias show.

You haven't shown corruption.
Your position that they do not care about the locals is irrelevant.
And way not to show you understand that even locals do not always agree with one another.

Click to expand...

Ok, I give up, I'm tire of your wise ass attitude anyway. insulting my intelligence isn't going to convince me.

Bullseye said:

Ok, I give up, I'm tire of your wise ass attitude anyway. insulting my intelligence isn't going to convince me.

Click to expand...

Insulting an intelligence? Where?