How much should corporations be allowed to contribute to political campaigns?

Cephus said:

I'm all in favor of creating a central pool where *ANY* contributions go. On a certain date, anyone who is legally registered to run gets an equal cut of the take. I want to see equality in funding so that it's the ISSUES, not the money that decides elections.

Not that we'll ever see that.

Click to expand...

That's basically what we have for Presidential elections now.

The Mark said:

Personally, I would much rather money be removed entirely from politics. But how, I have no idea.

Click to expand...

Voters could start getting their information by reading newspapers and other inexpensive, reliable, extensive sources and stop drooling over 30-second TV ads.

In other words, it'll never happen.

TurtleDude said:

There is nothing in the constitution that properly allows the federal government to limit contributions so the only legitimate answer is NO LIMIT

Click to expand...

Buckley v. Valeo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NoJingoLingo said:

You may be doing quite well. But thanks for once again confirming your lack of empathy.

Click to expand...

Empathy fades when comprehension kicks in.

NoJingoLingo said:

Even a broken watch is correct twice a day.

Click to expand...

So you're saying the liberals aren't broken watches, because they're never right ever.

NoJingoLingo said:

And the alternative:
We don't impose tariffs so it's cheaper to make it elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Tariffs cost money.

What sense is there in imposing taxes that hurt the economy?

Outside of playing favoritism on the political scene?

NoJingoLingo said:

When it's made elsewhere we lose jobs.

Click to expand...

No. People who used to make it here lose jobs. People who buy it here save money, and the money saved is used to finance other industries, so people in those industries gain jobs.

The goonion fish cleaners in the American tuna industry were demanding $15 an hour to clean fish. Guamanians were willing to clean fish for a hell of a lot less. Goonions priced themselves out of work, the housewives that made tuna benefitted. So did their kids.

You people suddenly object to the concept of "the greatest good for the greatest number" when it means your goonions aren't benefitted?

What a big surprise there.:roll:

NoJingoLingo said:

When people have no jobs they don't buy things.

Click to expand...

When people can buy things cheaper, they create jobs.

Levi Strauss closed it's pants factory in Georgia. Some broad whose only skill was zipper attachment was put out of work. All broads buying jeans saved money. The zipper lady should have learned a more marketable skill.

NoJingoLingo said:

When people don't buy things, companies go out of business and employ NO ONE.

Click to expand...

Really?

So you're saying that all the companies that produced products with steel in them would have gone out of business if Bushy hadn't imposed the tariffs?

NoJingoLingo said:

The cost of goods might very well increase and people will buy less but at least WE, the USA are in control of the process.

Click to expand...

Really? So people buying less is good for the economy? It's the government's job to control steel prices?

NoJingoLingo said:

Yes, the price of steel went up. Maybe it was too low because we outsourced it. :2wave:

Click to expand...

Yes, the price of steel went up. The price of steel was not too low. The price of American goonions was too high.

misterman said:

That's basically what we have for Presidential elections now.

Click to expand...

No, now whoever has the most money and can get themselves in front of the voters and spew the most soothing crap gets elected. Most elections are bought, not earned.

Cephus said:

No, now whoever has the most money and can get themselves in front of the voters and spew the most soothing crap gets elected. Most elections are bought, not earned.

Click to expand...

I was referring to public funding. But thanks for your insight.

NoJingoLingo said:

But the reality is that a corporation cannot directly contribute to a campaign but may contribute to a PAC, or a 527 which can run an ad and which amounts to the same thing.
Political Campaign Contribution Laws for Individuals

Click to expand...

That's because there are so many holes which you implicitly agree with. Of course other holes would need plugging. You'd have to ban corporations from any kind of political speech (which should be, anyway) and not allow the corporation (union, non-profit, anything other than an individual citizens) to contribute money to 527s and any incarnation thereof.

Click to expand...

A company could also run an issue ad itself or donate to an industry group that does it, which has the exact same impact - that's the point that you just keep missing. In order for your proposal to work the way you're pretending it would, you'd need to engage in an unprecedented, unconstitutional, and unworkable crackdown on all forms of issue advocacy. It's an awful idea that will never see the light of day and that really highlights that you don't have a firm understanding of how this really works.