In defense of unlimited donations to candidates

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Quantum Windbag, Jan 18, 2012.

  1. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    I wonder how many liberal/progressives think that ending the Vietnam War is a bad thing. Imagine if George Soros could have given a billion dollars to Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich? Ask yourself who benefits most from campaign finance restrictions, incumbents, or the public.

    http://www.wpost.com/opinions/how-p...nged-history/2012/01/16/gIQA6oH63P_story.html
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. occupied
    Online

    occupied Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    16,393
    Thanks Received:
    2,244
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,718
    I can think of a lot more negative repercussions than positive ones, especially since the MIC and Wall Street seems to have picked their party. No one citizen deserves the right to outshout any number of other citizens simply because they have deep pockets and a self serving agenda.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  3. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    They picked Dems in 2008, did you think they were evil then?
     
  4. MeBelle
    Offline

    MeBelle Mebellien Mothership © Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2011
    Messages:
    14,980
    Thanks Received:
    5,337
    Trophy Points:
    340
    Ratings:
    +6,135
    This is why federal funding of presidential campaigns (although I don't necessarily like my tax dollars supporting a candidate I don't care for) should be mandatory, with no opt-out.
    1) It puts every candidate on a level playing field.
    2) Current elected politicians can continue their jobs, instead of spending any amount of time campaigning on the publics dime.
    3) Zero outside influences.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    1) how is a candidate running against an incumbent on an equal footing with a person who can send you letters touting his success at passing legislation at taxpayer expense unless he has more money to spend to equal the impact of being in office? How much more should he get to make it fair?
    2) If you think making all campaigns financed on the taxpayer dime will stop office holders from running around to raise support you have no idea what really goes on at those fund raisers.
    3) Are you also going to make it illegal for congresscritters to take jobs with companies that want to hire them after they leave office?
     
  6. ClosedCaption
    Offline

    ClosedCaption Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    47,522
    Thanks Received:
    5,963
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +17,140
    There is a difference between defending something and excusing it. You are trying to excuse it by saying Obama did it too!

    Do you support unlimited corporate donations or not?
     
  7. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    Read my posts, my position is crystal clear.
     
  8. ClosedCaption
    Offline

    ClosedCaption Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    47,522
    Thanks Received:
    5,963
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +17,140
    Instead of assuming I just figured I'd ask you directly. So do you support unlimited corporate donations or not?
     
  9. MeBelle
    Offline

    MeBelle Mebellien Mothership © Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2011
    Messages:
    14,980
    Thanks Received:
    5,337
    Trophy Points:
    340
    Ratings:
    +6,135
    1) Each candidate receives the same amount of dollars to spend. How they choose to spend it is up to them. If the incumbent is sending out letters on the taxpayers dime, that would count toward their alloted amount.
    2) Refer to #1. There would be NO fund raising. And I do have experience with what happens at those fundraisers along with public speaking engagements.
    Even if dollars are not raised, endorsements can be gained.
    3) As long as it's not lobbying, at least until a decent amount of time has passed. (throwing out five years as an example)
     
  10. BillyV
    Offline

    BillyV Antidisestablishmentarian

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    591
    Thanks Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Ratings:
    +118
    I've heard this before, and it does sound interesting on its face, but......Who then decides who gets to be a candidate qualified to run (in other words, to get campaign funds)? Some government agency? Some arbitrary signature drive? How many signatures? Would they require ID to sign? What if you get 100 qualified candidates, how do you weed them out? It seems to me there would be some inherent difficulties in making it work.
     

Share This Page