In defense of unlimited donations to candidates

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?

Yes.
 
The problem with unlimited political donations isn't (just) that it advantages conservatives over liberals.

That, right there, is complete bunk and why this concept that CU is some RW plan a complete fallacy.

That is a typically false statement from the far right. Businesses and unions will support whom they will, and while businesses do support democrats along with pubs, generally they clean up on the right.
 
There is no defense of unlimited donations to candidates.

Given the OP just did exactly that, you are simply wrong.
Maybe if you'd care to state your argument why restricting rights and favoring incumbents is a good thing we could have some kind of discussion.
 
As I stated on another thread - lobbying and corporate donations in American politics is called freedom of speech. Everywhere else in the world it's called bribery...

That is the crux of the problem. But first a minor correction. It's only bribery if you're getting something in return. Basically a person might give to a campaign for a couple reasons. Either they expect some type of favor in return for their donation or they believe in what the candidate stands for and wants to help them get elected.

The problem is freedom of speech. And the reality is to keep money out of the election process freedom of speech would essentially have to be suspended all together. No one would be allowed to advocate for a candidate publicly other than the candidate. The reason is pretty much anyone who would want to reach a large public audience is going to need the money to do so. I just don't think you suspend freedom of speech during elections.

The best solution I believe is to get rid of PACs. Let anyone and everyone give as much money as they want directly to a candidate. The candidate however must make this public. They must inform the public who gave them the money and how much. Then the public must take some responsibility of their own and make a decision as to whether they still trust the candidate. Some would say it would be easy to just say giving money is not a form of free speech. I might even be inclined to agree with that. But it doesn't solve anything. People may not be able to give directly to candidate then, but it certainly can't stop anyone from using their own financial resources to advocate for a candidate. We would wind up with basically PACs all over again.
 
Progressives support limiting donations because it is their moral position that donations and money are evil.

I would suggest their moral position is that people can buy favours....

Progressive liberals support limiting donations, Progressive conservatives support unlimited donations.

How does removing the government's ability to control something fit your definition of progressive?
 
I would suggest their moral position is that people can buy favours....

Progressive liberals support limiting donations, Progressive conservatives support unlimited donations.

How does removing the government's ability to control something fit your definition of progressive?

Ron Paul's desire to legalize most drugs is a libertarian progressive position.

You keep stumbling over the idea of enforcing or relaxing political means for particular changes: that is the doctrine of progressivism.
 
There is no defense of unlimited donations to candidates.

Given the OP just did exactly that, you are simply wrong.
Maybe if you'd care to state your argument why restricting rights and favoring incumbents is a good thing we could have some kind of discussion.

LOL..."but you guys can buy politicians too" isn't a defense. Brilliant attempt at defending the indefensible though...
 
Progressive liberals support limiting donations, Progressive conservatives support unlimited donations.

How does removing the government's ability to control something fit your definition of progressive?

Ron Paul's desire to legalize most drugs is a libertarian progressive position.

You keep stumbling over the idea of enforcing or relaxing political means for particular changes: that is the doctrine of progressivism.

I get it now, everyone is a progressive statist but you.
 
There is no defense of unlimited donations to candidates.

Given the OP just did exactly that, you are simply wrong.
Maybe if you'd care to state your argument why restricting rights and favoring incumbents is a good thing we could have some kind of discussion.

LOL..."but you guys can buy politicians too" isn't a defense. Brilliant attempt at defending the indefensible though...

Umm, if you read the OP you would know that the politician that was "bought" never got elected, but the Vietnam war ended anyway.
 
There is no defense of unlimited donations to candidates.

Given the OP just did exactly that, you are simply wrong.
Maybe if you'd care to state your argument why restricting rights and favoring incumbents is a good thing we could have some kind of discussion.

LOL..."but you guys can buy politicians too" isn't a defense. Brilliant attempt at defending the indefensible though...

I am sorry I asked you to tax your three brain cells into coming up with a coherent argument for an adult discussion.
You can go back to dressing your dolls now.
 

Forum List

Back
Top