• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

  • No limits. However much money they can manage.

    Votes: 9 25.0%
  • Up to 100 million dollars

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • up to 50 million dollars

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Up to 10 million dollars

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Up to 1 million dollars

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Up to 500K

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Up to 100K

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Up to 50K

    Votes: 1 2.8%
  • Up to $200

    Votes: 2 5.6%
  • NONE. All political campaigns should be grassroots with money ONLY from the people

    Votes: 24 66.7%

  • Total voters
    36
We need serious campaign reform which takes the millions of dollars out of the equation and makes people run on credible platforms instead of how much money they can pump into mindless advertising that puts them in front of people's eyes. There are ways to make it workable, but like you said, getting it implemented is difficult. Unfortunately, the people who benefit from the system being the way it is right now are the only ones who could change the system and I don't see much hope in that.

What we need are voters who value their freedom, and who can read and understand their duty is to elect people with credible platforms.

What we have are illiterates and non-literates and over grown children with access to the ballot box. Frankly, all the in the world that don't address this won't fix the problem.
 
Corporations exist because the state recognizes them and regulates their behavior. It is completely reasonable that corporate political expenditures can be (and will be) regulated just as commercial speech is regulated today.
 
Do you think good leaders are being chosen now? :shock:
Sometimes.

Have two lottery drawings per week. Those chosen would only serve three or four days.

Who is going to spend much money to influence someone that would be out of office in three days? ... See how easy this is? ;)
But those chosen wouldn't get anything done, either, if they only had 3-4 days to get to know each other, decide what issue to work on, and come to some kind of agreement as to how they would work on it. Never happen.
 
How to reform elections.

1) Campaign Tax of $3-$5 to fund ALL state and federal elections.
2) enforce the publics right to the airwaves and make campaign ads a PSA with each candidate getting X# of 30 second spots at specific times of day; to run concurrently with each other.
3) Institute Instant Run-off Voting
4) remove all other funding activities, i.e. no fund raisers.

This way the public is in control of our elections and all candidates are given equal treatment.
 
How to reform elections.

1) Campaign Tax of $3-$5 to fund ALL state and federal elections.
2) enforce the publics right to the airwaves and make campaign ads a PSA with each candidate getting X# of 30 second spots at specific times of day; to run concurrently with each other.
3) Institute Instant Run-off Voting
4) remove all other funding activities, i.e. no fund raisers.

This way the public is in control of our elections and all candidates are given equal treatment.

That's largely what I was going to suggest. I think we need to make the elections about issues, not expenditures. That means nobody can put a penny of their own money into their own campaign (except to donate the the general process that they will eventually get a slice of).

1) As a consequence of their FCC licenses, all radio and television stations are required to run a certain number of commercials at various times of the day for *ALL* candidates in a particular race. These times are pre-defined so that all candidates will get primetime and off-primetime commercials. Absolutely no negative campaigning is allowed under any circumstances.
2) We add "none of the above" to the ballot. If "none of the above" wins, a second election will be held 6 weeks later and none of the people on the previous ballot will be considered. Obviously, people didn't want any of them, why run them again?
3) You can fundraise all you want, but you cannot fundraise for a particular candidate or party. All fundraising revenue is given to the general fund.

There's probably more to add.
 
That's largely what I was going to suggest. I think we need to make the elections about issues, not expenditures. That means nobody can put a penny of their own money into their own campaign (except to donate the the general process that they will eventually get a slice of).

1) As a consequence of their FCC licenses, all radio and television stations are required to run a certain number of commercials at various times of the day for *ALL* candidates in a particular race. These times are pre-defined so that all candidates will get primetime and off-primetime commercials. Absolutely no negative campaigning is allowed under any circumstances.
2) We add "none of the above" to the ballot. If "none of the above" wins, a second election will be held 6 weeks later and none of the people on the previous ballot will be considered. Obviously, people didn't want any of them, why run them again?
3) You can fundraise all you want, but you cannot fundraise for a particular candidate or party. All fundraising revenue is given to the general fund.

There's probably more to add.
I like the second one best.
 
That's largely what I was going to suggest. I think we need to make the elections about issues, not expenditures. That means nobody can put a penny of their own money into their own campaign (except to donate the the general process that they will eventually get a slice of).

1) As a consequence of their FCC licenses, all radio and television stations are required to run a certain number of commercials at various times of the day for *ALL* candidates in a particular race. These times are pre-defined so that all candidates will get primetime and off-primetime commercials. Absolutely no negative campaigning is allowed under any circumstances.
2) We add "none of the above" to the ballot. If "none of the above" wins, a second election will be held 6 weeks later and none of the people on the previous ballot will be considered. Obviously, people didn't want any of them, why run them again?
3) You can fundraise all you want, but you cannot fundraise for a particular candidate or party. All fundraising revenue is given to the general fund.

There's probably more to add.

1) I disagree with the government deciding what is or isn't a negative ad. Let the people decide. If a candidate wants to waste some or all of his allotted ad time running negative ads, that should be his/her right. You know, free speech and all. ;)

2) Instant Run-off Voting allows for 3rd party candidates to compete without being spoilers. It also elects by popular vote.

3) Then no one will bother to fund raise anyway so the point is a tautology.
 
1) I disagree with the government deciding what is or isn't a negative ad. Let the people decide. If a candidate wants to waste some or all of his allotted ad time running negative ads, that should be his/her right. You know, free speech and all. ;)

I mean in the sense that you can only work to build up your own strengths, not to tear the other guy down. We're supposed to be voting for what you can do, not what you claim the other guy can't.

2) Instant Run-off Voting allows for 3rd party candidates to compete without being spoilers. It also elects by popular vote.

If everyone is funded and advertised the same way, then there should be no spoilers, it won't be a two-party race, it'll be between everyone who is running equally.

3) Then no one will bother to fund raise anyway so the point is a tautology.

I'm sure you'll find people who will still fund-raise, even candidates because in the end, they will get a piece of the pie. Given a choice between getting no money and 1/4 of the money, they'll fundraise even harder.
 
It's NOT the government's money.

Any corporation should be able to spend as much of it's money as it wishes on just about anything.

And, yes, I support the repeal of all drug control laws, which, by the way, are unconstitutional.
...When the Constitution was written, drugs were not a problem...I think...They become a problem when laws are written against them, which may be true..The problem is, the root cause was never addressed, it could be that man simply can not do this.

So you agree with the premise that corporations should be able to buy elections. Sorry, but I for one do not trust any corporation..
This could make for an interesting movie, uncontrolled corporations and people.
Are there any nations on this planet with uncontrolled corporations??
Should be scary, very scary.
 
...When the Constitution was written, drugs were not a problem...I think...

Drugs are still not a problem.

I don't have any problem with drugs at all, outside of remembering to take my daily metformin pill.

What is a problem is the government's continued and repeated violation of everyone's civil rights by it's perpetuation of the failed War on Drug Users.

There wouldn't be any drug-related gang violence if drugs were a legal commodity with no consequences to the seller or buyer for possession and use.

What the idiot seller does to his body is his choice. His body, his choice, remember? It does not apply to bimbo baby incubators wanting to murder their babies, because it's the baby's body, not hers, but as far as drugs are concerned, if someone shoots up some crap, that's his business.

One of the major unspoken tenets of the Constitution and the American experiment is MYOB.

So you agree with the premise that corporations should be able to buy elections.

STRAWMAN ALERT! STRAWMAN ALERT!

WARNING! WARNING!

A POSTER HAS BEEN DETECTED CREATING A GOLEM AND THEN ATTACKING IT UNMERCIFULLY. EYEPROTECTION IS REQUIRED IN THE AREA TO WARD AGAINST FLYING STRAW AND FAILED ARGUMENTS.

WARNING! WARNING!

THIS HAS BEEN A STRAWMAN ALERT!

WE NOW RETURN YOU TO YOUR LOCAL PROGRAM.
 
Clean-up on Page 34. :mrgreen:
 
That was true until a few weeks ago.

At least know what you are talking about before you post misleading comments.

Published in February 2004 (updated January 2010)
Note: Portions of this publication may be affected by the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Essentially, the Court's ruling permits corporations and labor organizations to use treasury funds to make independent expenditures in connection with federal elections and to fund electioneering communications. The ruling did not affect the ban on corporate or union contributions or the reporting requirements for independent expenditures and electioneering communications. The Commission is studying the Court's opinion and will provide additional guidance as soon as possible.

The FEC and the Federal Campaign Finance Law Brochure

Did you get that? Corporations are STILL BANNED FROM CONTRIBUTING TO ELECTION CAMPAIGNS. However, they are now free to fund political advertisements and to have them aired or printed.
 
I think they should be allowed to buy all the commercials/ads they want for a politician as long as it is stated who paid for the ad/commercial, but directly giving to politicians should be seen as nothing more than a bribe. I believe free speech means you can speak ill or speak great about a political candidate just as long as it is not slander.Speech is the articulation of words that are either spoken,written, or sign language. So a ad on tv meets that definition,directly giving money however does not.

Sounds just like current law.... oh wait, it is.
 
I mean in the sense that you can only work to build up your own strengths, not to tear the other guy down. We're supposed to be voting for what you can do, not what you claim the other guy can't.
Again there's this thing called free speech.

If everyone is funded and advertised the same way, then there should be no spoilers, it won't be a two-party race, it'll be between everyone who is running equally.
You're wrong but I don't think explaining it will get through. Go read about Instant Run-off Voting.

I'm sure you'll find people who will still fund-raise, even candidates because in the end, they will get a piece of the pie. Given a choice between getting no money and 1/4 of the money, they'll fundraise even harder.
But I doubt you'll find non-politicians attending. :roll:
 
So you agree with the premise that corporations should be able to buy elections.

That statement isn't entirely right. Corporations will be able to attempt to influence elections by using money to support a candidate in that election.

The problem with that, is they have less restrictions on what they can say (to the best of my knowledge) because they are not politically affiliated. IE, they can lie, and say whatever they want about a candidate.

The obvious problem with that (if they can say whatever they want, that is) is that they can essentially turn political races into nothing but mudslinging fights; even more then they are now. That would make it so the candidate who can say the most effective crap about the other person would win, rather then the person with the best policies.
 
I think they should be allowed to buy all the commercials/ads they want for a politician as long as it is stated who paid for the ad/commercial, but directly giving to politicians should be seen as nothing more than a bribe. I believe free speech means you can speak ill or speak great about a political candidate just as long as it is not slander.Speech is the articulation of words that are either spoken,written, or sign language. So a ad on tv meets that definition,directly giving money however does not.
So you don't think it's bad for the people if a corporation or a cadre of corporations conspire to buy up all the ad time in a particular region, not just to flood the market with their ads but to prevent opposition ads from running at all. Don't the people suffer via lack of information?
 
Line Item Veto would be more practical and certainly less destructive to the principles of freedom this country was founded on.
Only because congress can't be trusted to pass bills without pork. The line item veto is bad for democracy because it gives even more power to the executive branch. A better solution is to end pork. Let the Bills pass or fail based on the content of the legislation and not on the bribes in it.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Again there's this thing called free speech.

Free speech is never unlimited.

But I doubt you'll find non-politicians attending.

Then I guess all the political campaigns will be underfunded and that's fine with me too.
 
Only because congress can't be trusted to pass bills without pork. The line item veto is bad for democracy because it gives even more power to the executive branch. A better solution is to end pork. Let the Bills pass or fail based on the content of the legislation and not on the bribes in it.
You are talking a major restructuring of the entire system of power in this country.

I like it.

But DAMN it will take some doing.
 
You are talking a major restructuring of the entire system of power in this country.

I like it.

But DAMN it will take some doing.

There is no legal way to do it. You can't depend on the Congressmen to just start being better people, and you can't really get them all out of office fast enough for it to work.

What might honestly be better, is to establish a smaller, smarter power base to control the USA for a short period of time, and (dependent on the power base) re-establish government. But then you need to have the small group of people who take over be absolutely the best in the country, but if they are, thigns most likely will work out after that...

The people need to rise up, displace the government, and retake it for themselves, preferrably bloodlessly, having our Congress retire, and just watch politics.
 
You are talking a major restructuring of the entire system of power in this country.

I like it.

But DAMN it will take some doing.

Unfortunately, we need it. We don't need to restructure it, we just need to return it to the way it was intended to be, before money and power and career politicians got in the way.
 
You are talking a major restructuring of the entire system of power in this country.

I like it.

But DAMN it will take some doing.

What it takes is for people to wake up and realize that corporations are not the gods of America and should have a lot less power than they have. Once people connect the dots and stop voting against their financial interests then we can start the process of extracting the corporate power from our government.

The thing that I find most intriguing is listening to the Washington Journal in the mornings. I hear people, both repubs and democrats, complain about all the damage jobs being shipped overseas but only some of the democrats actually blame the corporations and none of the repubs. :shock:
 
Unfortunately, we need it. We don't need to restructure it, we just need to return it to the way it was intended to be, before money and power and career politicians got in the way.
Those things have always been intertwined with governing. The problem is that we let it get so far out of hand that we lost control.
 
Those things have always been intertwined with governing. The problem is that we let it get so far out of hand that we lost control.

Explain how the freedom of speech gets "out of hand", and when was it "controlled" in this country.

Are you referring to the Alien and Sedition Acts?
 
Back
Top Bottom