Public support "limits" on Campaign Spending

Discussion in 'Politics' started by shintao, Oct 31, 2010.

  1. shintao
    Offline

    shintao Take Down ~ Tap Out

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Messages:
    7,231
    Thanks Received:
    320
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +339
    I have to lean with those that want 1st & 4th Amendment Rights for America. Candidates should be able to get their contributions from any source, and as long as it is not the US government giving it to them, should be protected from disclosure of donors. American rights of freedoms comes with the need to sacrifice, simply put, you can't always have it your way when shit hits the fan. The bigger goal is to insure we do not lose our freedoms.

    ==========
    Americans Want Disclosure and Limits on Campaign Spending

    By MEGAN THEE-BRENAN
    In a year of record campaign spending, Americans overwhelmingly support limits on corporate and advocacy group funding of campaign advertisements, strongly support limits on how much campaigns can spend and favor full disclosure of spending by both campaigns and outside groups.

    The latest New York Times/CBS News poll found that nearly 8 in 10 Americans say it is important (including 6 in 10 who say “very important”) to limit the amount of money campaigns can spend. While majorities of each party’s registered voters agree that limits are important, Democrats (68 percent) and independents (59 percent) are more likely than Republicans (52 percent) to say it is “very” important.

    Americans are even more supportive of full disclosure by campaigns with 92 percent saying it is important for campaigns to be required by law to disclose how much money they have raised, where the money came from and how it was used. There was little difference in the opinions of each party’s voters on this question.

    Americans Want Disclosure and Limits on Campaign Spending - NYTimes.com
     
  2. California Girl
    Offline

    California Girl BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    50,337
    Thanks Received:
    8,960
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +8,965
    Disclosure yes.
    Limits no
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Flopper
    Online

    Flopper Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    15,233
    Thanks Received:
    2,700
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    Washington
    Ratings:
    +5,309
    "The bigger goal is to insure we do not lose our freedoms."

    If the way we elect candidates to office insures that they will not represent the people then we have lost one, if not our most important freedom, the right to have a voice in how our country is run. Elected officials today do not represent the people, but rather those that paid for their campaign. Many if not most voter's only exposure to candidates is via TV commercials and other paid advertising. Elections are determined by the amount and quality of the advertising and the skill of the campaign's public relations. It has little or nothing to do with the capability of candidate.
     
  4. The Infidel
    Offline

    The Infidel EVIL CONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    17,252
    Thanks Received:
    3,170
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AMERITOPIA
    Ratings:
    +3,173
    I agree.... full disclosure.

    Problem is... them libz are sneaky dishonest lil bastards :doubt:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Dont Taz Me Bro
    Offline

    Dont Taz Me Bro USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    31,636
    Thanks Received:
    6,685
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Ratings:
    +17,534
    Limits on campaign spending = Incumbent protection.

    Enough said.
     
  6. shintao
    Offline

    shintao Take Down ~ Tap Out

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Messages:
    7,231
    Thanks Received:
    320
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +339
    That smacks the 4th Amendment and violates the candidates private campaign and personnel privacy rights. It also cost the taxpayer a bundle of money ever election to investigate, to prosecute, and house people for taking money from various sources attached to the global economy, such as nationals money. I really don't care where he gets his money from or who he supports because of the money he recieved from whatever source. And when found out the gov. slaps a fine on them, and life goes on.

    Let me ask you, do you think a private citizen should have to disclose where his cash come from, or forfit it to the government? Say I buy a house, slap $100,000. cash down, do you think I should have to disclose where I got that cash? And fill out of ton of governmentease papers to turn over to them? If you agree with one, you can count on the other occurring.
     
  7. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    The only limit I want on campaign contributions/spending is to prohibit out of state money for all except presidential races.
    People from out of state should not be able to "buy" elections in another state.
     
  8. shintao
    Offline

    shintao Take Down ~ Tap Out

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Messages:
    7,231
    Thanks Received:
    320
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +339
    The problem with campaign cash, is it can be laundered in through various businesses and used long before any investigation is conducted. By then the candidate is elected, he gives the money back, doesn't give it back, and might pay a small fine. Then life goes on. Meantime taxpayers pay for the gov. process of investigations, and get nothing in return.

    Are we going to say foreign deductions are illegal? Why? Its a global economy.

    If we are serious, shouldn't the candidate go to prison for a few years instead of a fine, and be permanently barred from running again?

    I will stay with my stance.
     
  9. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    imo if other states can give money to influence a state election why cannot China also do the same?
     
  10. loosecannon
    Offline

    loosecannon Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,888
    Thanks Received:
    263
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +264
    It should be a felony to give any elected rep or candidate for elected office one thin dime.

    It is bribery plain and simple.

    The system we have now is that of government of the money, by the money, for the money.

    Show me that in the constitution!
     

Share This Page