In defense of unlimited donations to candidates

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
May 9, 2010
58,308
5,099
245
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.

Sheldon Adelson is supposedly a bad man. The gambling mogul gave $5 million to a Newt Gingrich-loving super PAC and this enabled Gingrich to maul Mitt Romney — a touch of opinion here — who had it coming anyway. Adelson is a good friend of Gingrich and a major player in Israeli politics. He owns a newspaper in Israel and supports politicians so far to the right I have to wonder if they are even Jewish. This is Sheldon Adelson, supposedly a bad man. But what about Howard Stein?

The late chairman of the Dreyfus Corp. was a wealthy man but, unlike Adelson, a liberal Democrat. Stein joined with some other rich men — including Martin Peretz, the one-time publisher of the New Republic; Stewart Mott, a GM heir; and Arnold Hiatt of Stride Rite Shoes — to provide about $1.5 million for Eugene McCarthy’s 1968 challenge to Lyndon Johnson. Stein and his colleagues did not raise this money in itsy-bitsy donations but by chipping in large amounts themselves. Peretz told me he kicked in $30,000. That was a huge amount of money at the time.

That sort of donation would now be illegal — unless it was given to a super PAC that swore not to coordinate with the candidate. And until quite recently, even that would have been illegal — the limit being something like $2,400. Many people bemoan that the limit is no more, asserting that elections are now up for sale, as if this was something new. They point to the Adelson contribution and unload invective on the poor right-wing gambling tycoon. I understand, but I do not agree.

Back in 1967, a small group of men gave McCarthy the wherewithal to challenge a sitting president of the United States. The money enabled McCarthy to swiftly set up a New Hampshire operation and — lo and behold — he got 42 percent of the popular vote, an astounding figure. Johnson was rocked. Four days later, Robert F. Kennedy, who at first had declined to do what McCarthy did, jumped in himself. By the end of March 1968, Johnson was on TV, announcing he would not seek a second term.

http://www.wpost.com/opinions/how-p...nged-history/2012/01/16/gIQA6oH63P_story.html
 
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.
 
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.

They picked Dems in 2008, did you think they were evil then?
 
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.
 
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.

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?
 
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?
 
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.

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?

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)
 
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.

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?

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)

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.
 
As much as I like the idea of publicly funded elections with no outside contributions, I can't think of any way that it would actually work.

Not to mention it's a political impossibility.
 
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.

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?

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)

1) The incumbent already sends letters on your dime, and campaign funds are completely separate.
2) Did I say anything about fund raising? Congresscritters go on junkets all the time that are apid for by corporations or private donors, none of them have anything to do with fund raising for campaigns. It is the law.
3) Chris Dodd is the Charman of the MPAA, not a lobbyist, (legally) but all his buds from the Senate are supporting PIPA.
 
Dude, are you for it or not? Why can't I get a straight answer from the Right on this one?
 
Last edited:
The problem with unlimited political donations isn't (just) that it advantages conservatives over liberals. It's that it advantages the rich over the poor. Allowing donations of this kind on either side gives more power to the dollar and less to the human being in deciding who will hold political office. While I am relieved that powerful financial interests don't give exclusively to Republicans, I still support tighter restrictions on political spending.

The author's choice of example is also quite weak. His best use of liberal donations is apparently one that set off an intraparty squabble that led to the election of President Nixon.
 
The problem with unlimited political donations isn't (just) that it advantages conservatives over liberals. It's that it advantages the rich over the poor. Allowing donations of this kind on either side gives more power to the dollar and less to the human being in deciding who will hold political office. While I am relieved that powerful financial interests don't give exclusively to Republicans, I still support tighter restrictions on political spending.

The author's choice of example is also quite weak. His best use of liberal donations is apparently one that set off an intraparty squabble that led to the election of President Nixon.

There are plenty of rich liberals.

There were other factors that led to Nixon winning that year. The new left was just starting out, and had serious problems with the establishment of the Democratic Party. If they had not eventually won that fight Democrats would still be advocating segregation.
 
No what you're doing is refusing totake a position so you can take shots at everyone else. Namely Obama. Again, do you support it or not? Do you stand for something or stand against everything? It's an open question ...
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top