Aren't there already limits on this?
As in, a single entity can only contribute X amount?
I think it's a bit more than $200, and far less than the next one up.
What???That was true until a few weeks ago.
Any money towards campaigns is political prostitution, this prostitution exists because there is no democratic media and candidates have to rely on corporate media, therefor we have a bunch of whores in the government, nothing surprising. that is why I figured out a solution, but people are calling me a nutjob godsgovernment.orgHow much should corporations be allowed to contribute to political campaigns?
What???
I think you are incorrect.
There are still limits on how much one entity can donate to a political campaign....which is not to say that those limits have not routinely been circumvented, broken, bypassed, ignored, and otherwise avoided since they were put in place
From your own link:Heh, I see you're slightly out of the loop.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Seems I was mistaken, by the sounds of this - corporations can't contribute anything at all.The decision upheld the requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of advertisements, and the ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidates, in part IV
But then all the power that comes with contributing political funding is placed in the hands of the people who decide who, what where and how it is allocated.Personally, I'd rather not allow anyone, corporations or individuals, to contribute anything directly to political candidates, it makes it too easy to buy votes, especially from a corporate standpoint. I'd much rather see people supporting the political system, not individual candidates.
But then all the power that comes with contributing political funding is placed in the hands of the people who decide who, what where and how it is allocated.
And takes it away from the voters who donate these days.
I agree that some reformation of the laws governing campaigns is needed.
But removing control of their own money in regards to which candidate it goes to is a bad idea, IMO.
That could work, if it could be implemented.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.
Anyone that wanted to run could enter a lottery and the winners could be select by random drawings.That could work, if it could be implemented.
But I don’t think people would contribute as much, or at all, if they don’t know it is going to a candidate that they support. As a result, any such pool would start shrinking, and then we might get a “campaign tax”.
Personally, I would much rather money be removed entirely from politics. But how, I have no idea.
That might work in the campaign, but no one would go for it, as you would really have no say in which leaders were chosen.Anyone that wanted to run could enter a lottery and the winners could be select by random drawings.
How much should corporations be allowed to contribute to political campaigns?
Do you think good leaders are being chosen now? :shock:That might work in the campaign, but no one would go for it, as you would really have no say in which leaders were chosen.
Have two lottery drawings per week. Those chosen would only serve three or four days.However, it wouldn't address the control over monetary power that politicians in office have. And their ability to benefit from that control.
That could work, if it could be implemented.
But I don’t think people would contribute as much, or at all, if they don’t know it is going to a candidate that they support. As a result, any such pool would start shrinking, and then we might get a “campaign tax”.
Personally, I would much rather money be removed entirely from politics. But how, I have no idea.
Anyone that wanted to run could enter a lottery and the winners could be select by random drawings.
.
There is nothing in the constitution that properly allows the federal government to limit contributions so the only legitimate answer is NO LIMIT
There is nothing in the constitution that properly allows the federal government to limit contributions so the only legitimate answer is NO LIMIT
If enough popular support can be drummed up (and it would take a LOT to get past corporate bribery), the constitution can be amended to fix this problem. However the practical chances of it happening approach 0.