Real campaign finance reform=no campaign donations by anyone for any reason!

[BenMarbleMD]

The internet is the great equalizer so I say that all someone needs to run an effective campaign is an internet connection and a good internet PR person. If we want to take our country back how about:

NO DONATIONS TO ANYONE BY ANYONE FOR ANY REASON!
What say ye?

 

[uscitizen]

That will work about as well as wings on a buffalo.

 

[Publius1787]

The internet is the great equalizer so I say that all someone needs to run an effective campaign is an internet connection and a good internet PR person. If we want to take our country back how about:

NO DONATIONS TO ANYONE BY ANYONE FOR ANY REASON!
What say ye?

I dont think the 1st Amendment of the Constitution would approve of your idea. But how about this. If you are dependant on the government in any way, as a person, organization, or a business, you dont get to vote or contribute campaign donations. Military excluded. I like that one better!

 

[uscitizen]

The internet is the great equalizer so I say that all someone needs to run an effective campaign is an internet connection and a good internet PR person. If we want to take our country back how about:

NO DONATIONS TO ANYONE BY ANYONE FOR ANY REASON!
What say ye?

I dont think the 1st Amendment of the Constitution would approve of your idea. But how about this. If you are dependant on the government in any way, as a person, organization, or a business, you dont get to vote or contribute campaign donations. Military excluded. I like that one better!

That would eliminate a minimum of 30% of the vote. More likely 70%.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The internet is the great equalizer so I say that all someone needs to run an effective campaign is an internet connection and a good internet PR person. If we want to take our country back how about:

NO DONATIONS TO ANYONE BY ANYONE FOR ANY REASON!
What say ye?

I say you've never ran for office before.

 

[Immanuel]

The internet is the great equalizer so I say that all someone needs to run an effective campaign is an internet connection and a good internet PR person. If we want to take our country back how about:

NO DONATIONS TO ANYONE BY ANYONE FOR ANY REASON!
What say ye?

I dont think the 1st Amendment of the Constitution would approve of your idea. But how about this. If you are dependant on the government in any way, as a person, organization, or a business, you dont get to vote or contribute campaign donations. Military excluded. I like that one better!

So you want to take away the vote of everyone on Welfare... actually everyone who drives because we are all dependent upon the highway system among other things.

Now really, I have to say that I think your idea is a bad one... really bad.

First off, I believe even those people who are on Welfare have the right to their say in this government and secondly, being unemployed at the moment, I don't see it as being right that I would not have a voice in my own government. Not that it really matters though because if I had my say the incumbents would all be in the unemployment line with me.

Immie

 

[BenMarbleMD]

The internet is the great equalizer so I say that all someone needs to run an effective campaign is an internet connection and a good internet PR person. If we want to take our country back how about:

NO DONATIONS TO ANYONE BY ANYONE FOR ANY REASON!
What say ye?

I say you've never ran for office before.

So you are saying it can't be done? I think I can prove you wrong. But if I prove you wrong then my first action as president will be to write an 'executive order' banning ALL CAMPAIGN DONATIONS BY ANYONE TO ANYONE FOR ANY REASON! $ is NOT needed to run an effective campaign!~

VOTE BEN MARBLE, M.D. - PRESIDENT OF THE USA 2012~

 

[Publius1787]

The internet is the great equalizer so I say that all someone needs to run an effective campaign is an internet connection and a good internet PR person. If we want to take our country back how about:

NO DONATIONS TO ANYONE BY ANYONE FOR ANY REASON!
What say ye?

I dont think the 1st Amendment of the Constitution would approve of your idea. But how about this. If you are dependant on the government in any way, as a person, organization, or a business, you dont get to vote or contribute campaign donations. Military excluded. I like that one better!

So you want to take away the vote of everyone on Welfare... actually everyone who drives because we are all dependent upon the highway system among other things.

Now really, I have to say that I think your idea is a bad one... really bad.

First off, I believe even those people who are on Welfare have the right to their say in this government and secondly, being unemployed at the moment, I don't see it as being right that I would not have a voice in my own government. Not that it really matters though because if I had my say the incumbents would all be in the unemployment line with me.

Immie

I lay out a perfect reasonable case here >>> http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...ld-welfare-recipients-be-allowed-to-vote.html

1. A highway is a service that everyone benefits from and is in keeping with the General Welfare.
2. Welfare is a privilage paid for by others for the specific welfare. Big difference.

No taxation no representation. If you are dependant on government and pay no taxes (Or getting back more in tax credits than you pay in) then what say should you have in where everyone elses money goes? That doesent belong to you! Its bad enough that many must sacrafice their liberty to keep the welfare queens comfortable but to turn around and have that same welfare queen vote her own paycheck out of the taxpayers pocket is no difference than institutionalized theft. Its a conflict of interest. James Madison warned about this corrupting political process at the constitutional convention.
Furthermore, if you own a business or are the head of a corperation that recieves government bailouts or corperate welfare then what right do you have redistributing that money back in to the pockets of the polititions that bailed you out on the public dime? Thats double institutionalized theft! Your allready taking the liberty of others who are striped of their money in order to save the business so whats so bad about forfiting the right to donate to campaigns? And eye for an eye. A loss of liberty compensated with a loss of liberty. I think it sounds perfect! Of course, there are a couple of particulars that must be worked out.

 

[whitehall]

How do you finance a campaign with no donations? Confiscate finance money from taxpayers? Force the media to run free ads? Put people in jail for the crime of supporting a candidate? Only accept donations from left wing supporters like George Soros?

 

[Mad Scientist]

The internet is the great equalizer so I say that all someone needs to run an effective campaign is an internet connection and a good internet PR person. If we want to take our country back how about:

NO DONATIONS TO ANYONE BY ANYONE FOR ANY REASON!
What say ye?

I dont think the 1st Amendment of the Constitution would approve of your idea. But how about this. If you are dependant on the government in any way, as a person, organization, or a business, you dont get to vote or contribute campaign donations. Military excluded. I like that one better!

I love your idea! But I think we should give waivers to everyone who doesn't meet the qualifications. You know, just to be fair.

 

[shintao]

The internet is the great equalizer so I say that all someone needs to run an effective campaign is an internet connection and a good internet PR person. If we want to take our country back how about:

NO DONATIONS TO ANYONE BY ANYONE FOR ANY REASON!
What say ye?

I dont think the 1st Amendment of the Constitution would approve of your idea. But how about this. If you are dependant on the government in any way, as a person, organization, or a business, you dont get to vote or contribute campaign donations. Military excluded. I like that one better!

I totally think the opposite way. If you are dependent on government, you have to vote to continue getting benefits. No stub, no bennies. I don't think a lot of those people exist, so this would give us the yearly count for the census, and give DC a head count for how much budget they need.

 

[shintao]

The internet is the great equalizer so I say that all someone needs to run an effective campaign is an internet connection and a good internet PR person. If we want to take our country back how about:

NO DONATIONS TO ANYONE BY ANYONE FOR ANY REASON!
What say ye?

I dont think the 1st Amendment of the Constitution would approve of your idea. But how about this. If you are dependant on the government in any way, as a person, organization, or a business, you dont get to vote or contribute campaign donations. Military excluded. I like that one better!

So you want to take away the vote of everyone on Welfare... actually everyone who drives because we are all dependent upon the highway system among other things.

Now really, I have to say that I think your idea is a bad one... really bad.

First off, I believe even those people who are on Welfare have the right to their say in this government and secondly, being unemployed at the moment, I don't see it as being right that I would not have a voice in my own government. Not that it really matters though because if I had my say the incumbents would all be in the unemployment line with me.

Immie

And what of those who run government? Why should Congressmen vote their own pay raises?

 

[BrianH]

How do you finance a campaign with no donations? Confiscate finance money from taxpayers? Force the media to run free ads? Put people in jail for the crime of supporting a candidate? Only accept donations from left wing supporters like George Soros?

I'd rather my tax money be used for candidates to wage a reasonable and eqaul campaign as opposed to numerous other uses. I'm not going to sit here and claim that it would work, but it would be nice. I think that's a primary problem in our election system. The guy with the most money gets more face time and more campaign exposure...simple as that. So really we're just electing candidates with the most money, and not necessarily the one with the best decision making ability. I think that:

1. Campaign spending must be capped (if it isn't already--not sure)
2. I think that candidates should be portrayed equally in the eyes of the press (Yes 1st Amendment I know)
3. No exceptions of campaign donations. ( If these people really want the candidate to win, then they can spend their own money, go out on the road, and campaign for them or start a website)


It's a shame that they only people that can run for president are the super-ass rich. I'm not saying that someone couldn't get nominated, but as the system stands now, they couldn't afford to run a campaign. It's obvious that our system is set up for wealth rather than intelligence.

 

[JFK_USA]

I dont think the 1st Amendment of the Constitution would approve of your idea. But how about this. If you are dependant on the government in any way, as a person, organization, or a business, you dont get to vote or contribute campaign donations. Military excluded. I like that one better!

So you want to take away the vote of everyone on Welfare... actually everyone who drives because we are all dependent upon the highway system among other things.

Now really, I have to say that I think your idea is a bad one... really bad.

First off, I believe even those people who are on Welfare have the right to their say in this government and secondly, being unemployed at the moment, I don't see it as being right that I would not have a voice in my own government. Not that it really matters though because if I had my say the incumbents would all be in the unemployment line with me.

Immie

I lay out a perfect reasonable case here >>> http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...ld-welfare-recipients-be-allowed-to-vote.html

1. A highway is a service that everyone benefits from and is in keeping with the General Welfare.
2. Welfare is a privilage paid for by others for the specific welfare. Big difference.

No taxation no representation. If you are dependant on government and pay no taxes (Or getting back more in tax credits than you pay in) then what say should you have in where everyone elses money goes? That doesent belong to you! Its bad enough that many must sacrafice their liberty to keep the welfare queens comfortable but to turn around and have that same welfare queen vote her own paycheck out of the taxpayers pocket is no difference than institutionalized theft. Its a conflict of interest. James Madison warned about this corrupting political process at the constitutional convention.
Furthermore, if you own a business or are the head of a corperation that recieves government bailouts or corperate welfare then what right do you have redistributing that money back in to the pockets of the polititions that bailed you out on the public dime? Thats double institutionalized theft! Your allready taking the liberty of others who are striped of their money in order to save the business so whats so bad about forfiting the right to donate to campaigns? And eye for an eye. A loss of liberty compensated with a loss of liberty. I think it sounds perfect! Of course, there are a couple of particulars that must be worked out.

What about construction companies that get bids for work?

What about health insurance companies that receive money from the government?

What about health care providers who receive Medicare and social security money to provide for the elderly?

What about the sports team that get state money to build new stadiums?

What about companies that ask for tax breaks just to build jobs in the area?


EVERYONE I mean EVERYONE uses the government for something. Your company at some point tried to get a handout from the government, why blame the poor for doing what rich people have done for years? The problem is everyone wants to have something for nothing. See people bitch about an extra $800/year in Illinois state taxes so they can provide money for their schools, police and fire department. Not to mention the plows that are out there clearing the snow on the roads.

I know horrible socialism, everyone should have a $10000 plow on their Prius to clear the road. No donations for campaigns? So only rich people can run for elections? Think about it, in a state representative campaign, they average $30,000 for a campaign. That was in a extremely liberal district here in Missouri where he ran unopposed. Think about in a hotly contested district where they have to win a primary and then the election? So more rich people getting exactly what they want and screw everyone else? Yeah thats a great plan. Look our system isn't perfect, but you're idea just doesn't help at all.

 

[BenMarbleMD]

How do you finance a campaign with no donations? Confiscate finance money from taxpayers? Force the media to run free ads? Put people in jail for the crime of supporting a candidate? Only accept donations from left wing supporters like George Soros?

You are missing the point entirely: one only need the costs of internet to run a political campaign. When $ enters the campaign process so does corruption so remove the root cause of the corruption. Other than the costs of the internet one does NOT need $ to run a campaign! Big Business owns The Duopoly so if we want to fix our broken system we must remove their single biggest influence i.e. MONEY via campaign contributions!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The internet is the great equalizer so I say that all someone needs to run an effective campaign is an internet connection and a good internet PR person. If we want to take our country back how about:

NO DONATIONS TO ANYONE BY ANYONE FOR ANY REASON!
What say ye?

What you suggest would only work for the benifit of the wealthest in America. Only the rich would be able to afford to run for office.

 

[BenMarbleMD]

The internet is the great equalizer so I say that all someone needs to run an effective campaign is an internet connection and a good internet PR person. If we want to take our country back how about:

NO DONATIONS TO ANYONE BY ANYONE FOR ANY REASON!
What say ye?

What you suggest would only work for the benifit of the wealthest in America. Only the rich would be able to afford to run for office.

that is merely an EXCUSE to justify keeping the status quo corrupt system in place

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The internet is the great equalizer so I say that all someone needs to run an effective campaign is an internet connection and a good internet PR person. If we want to take our country back how about:

NO DONATIONS TO ANYONE BY ANYONE FOR ANY REASON!
What say ye?

What you suggest would only work for the benifit of the wealthest in America. Only the rich would be able to afford to run for office.

that is merely an EXCUSE to justify keeping the status quo corrupt system in place

That isn't an excuse that’s fact no poor person can run for office without financial support. and it take money to run a campaign, if it's on a national level or even on a state level it takes a lot of money.

 

[uptownlivin90]

The internet is the great equalizer so I say that all someone needs to run an effective campaign is an internet connection and a good internet PR person. If we want to take our country back how about:

NO DONATIONS TO ANYONE BY ANYONE FOR ANY REASON!
What say ye?

I say you've never ran for office before.

So you are saying it can't be done? I think I can prove you wrong. But if I prove you wrong then my first action as president will be to write an 'executive order' banning ALL CAMPAIGN DONATIONS BY ANYONE TO ANYONE FOR ANY REASON! $ is NOT needed to run an effective campaign!~

VOTE BEN MARBLE, M.D. - PRESIDENT OF THE USA 2012~

That's called fascism.

Americans don't tend to elect fascists. Then again... no, you might actually get elected.

The government has no right to ban people from donating to campaigns and no right to impose any "campaign finance reform laws" on corporations or people. Your money is your money, use it to your discretion. The argument that our broken electoral system is screwed because big corporations pay big bucks to buy media time for their candidates is bullshit.

Our electoral system is screwed because big fat lazy flag waving dullards believe everything that they see on CNN and MSNBC and think their "Smart" because they can hold a five minute water cooler conversation about Mrs. Obama being pregnant.

 

[Immanuel]

I dont think the 1st Amendment of the Constitution would approve of your idea. But how about this. If you are dependant on the government in any way, as a person, organization, or a business, you dont get to vote or contribute campaign donations. Military excluded. I like that one better!

So you want to take away the vote of everyone on Welfare... actually everyone who drives because we are all dependent upon the highway system among other things.

Now really, I have to say that I think your idea is a bad one... really bad.

First off, I believe even those people who are on Welfare have the right to their say in this government and secondly, being unemployed at the moment, I don't see it as being right that I would not have a voice in my own government. Not that it really matters though because if I had my say the incumbents would all be in the unemployment line with me.

Immie

And what of those who run government? Why should Congressmen vote their own pay raises?

Where did I say that Congress should have the right to vote for their own raises?

Those who run government are citizens as well and they should have the same rights as I do when it comes to voting.

Immie