Public support "limits" on Campaign Spending

[shintao]

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

 

[California Girl]

Disclosure yes.
Limits no

 

[Flopper]

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

"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.

 

[The Infidel]

Disclosure yes.
Limits no

I agree.... full disclosure.

Problem is... them libz are sneaky dishonest lil bastards

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Limits on campaign spending = Incumbent protection.

Enough said.

 

[shintao]

Disclosure yes.Limits no

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.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

 

[shintao]

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

"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.

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.

 

[uscitizen]

imo if other states can give money to influence a state election why cannot China also do the same?

 

[loosecannon]

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!

 

[Flopper]

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

"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.

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.

prison sounds good to me.

 

[shintao]

imo if other states can give money to influence a state election why cannot China also do the same?

I remember the last election,
the prohibitionist were in action,
they was trying to elect themselves a president.
John Henry & Bill Austin,
walked from New Orleans to Boston,
and they got a bottle in every settlement.
Their in the jail house now, their in the jail house now.
They were down at the rail road tracks,
stealing a train to bring their whiskey back,
Their in the jail house now. ~ J.Cash

 

[Flopper]

Although it may curtail the right of free speech, I think it is time for real campaign reform. First there should be no paid political advertising for any candidate within 3 months of an election. Within the 3 months period, candidates can delivery as many speeches as they like, do town hall meetings, and public debate, but no paid advertising.

 

[WillowTree]

Disclosure yes.
Limits no

I agree.... full disclosure.

Problem is... them libz are sneaky dishonest lil bastards

"corrupt bastards" as some fine lady so recently pointed out..

 

[uscitizen]

Although it may curtail the right of free speech, I think it is time for real campaign reform. First there should be no paid political advertising for any candidate within 3 months of an election. Within the 3 months period, candidates can delivery as many speeches as they like, do town hall meetings, and public debate, but no paid advertising.

I like that idea too.

they can speak all they want just not pay others to "speak" for them.

 

[Flopper]

I think another way of straightening out our system is party-proportional representation. At least I think that's the term. The way it works is each party gets representation based on the percent of votes that the party receives. For example if the Republicans got 40% of the votes, Democrats got 40%, the Green party got 10% and the Libertarian party got 10% then 10 legislative seats would be divided proportionately, 4 to Republicans, 4 to Democrats, 1 to the Libertarians, and 1 to the Green Party.

I think this is much fairer and more democratic that what we have now. Of course the powers that be would never go along with this.

Proportional representation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LibocalypseNow]

OOPS! Democrats have vastly outspent Republicans in these current Elections. Time to change the Talking Points i guess. Sorry bout that.