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

[BlackAsCoal]

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.

Public financing counters that.

Being rich won't matter.

 

[JohnA]

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!

The first idea is a good one but it will never pass politicians on both sides have puppet masters who thou there money put them in power . who would set the agenda if the puppet masters didnt ??


the second idea is crazy we dont have enought people vote as it is now ,only 60 % of eligible voters bother at any given election . people who dont bother to vote should lose the right would be a better idea .

id like to back to the past where you had to take a intelligent test before being able to vote .
a lot of folks vote the way there union , church exc tell them to , thats why we have such a bunch of crooks who have run the country in every administration

nixon said *im not a crook * what he should have said is im no more a crook then the rest of the parasites in congress .

 

[JFK_USA]

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.

We don't agree with you mostly at all. But this I can agree with.

 

[loosecannon]

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!

It was an activist decision by the SC to ever characterize bribing public officials as free speech. You know it, I know it everybody knows it.

bs, why exclude the military?

Not one thin dime in campaign contributions should be allowed to be donated to any person seeking public office. Word!

 

[loosecannon]

I lay out a perfect reasonable case here >>>

You are never perfectly reasonable or even mildly reasonable. You are a liar first and foremost. One who relies on cunning and carefully crafted deceit and sophistry to advance your uber partisan agenda.

IOW you are a prototypical shill. Nothing more.

 

[loosecannon]

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?

absolutely not.

 

[loosecannon]

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.

quite the opposite.

 

[loosecannon]

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.

It only takes money because campaign donations make that so.

Seriously dude, think about it...if no candidate was allowed to spend more than say $10,000 on any campaign we would get a better shake and of course the public airways can be sequestered to ensure equal time for all candidates to present their ideas.

 

[loosecannon]

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.

No, you got it exactly wrong, our present system is fascism.

 

[loosecannon]

How about only PEOPLE can donate to a campaign and free airtime for any candidate who gets enough voter signatures.

Becuase businesses are affected by congressional legislation as well.

But businesses are not people. Definitely not citizens. Definitely no right to vote. Or to bribe public officials.

 

[loosecannon]

Businesses are run by people and they can vote.

They can also be allowed to talk to the congresscritters.

Not a dime spent on anything but the salary of their lobbiest.

No lunches, no trips , not a thing given to OUR representatives.

They can be heard but not even wine and dine the PEOPLES reps.

The businesses are affected by legislation. If they are private, it is the same as the business owner making the donation. If the business is public, the stockholders are quite aware of how the money is spent and it is their choice to either support it or sell out.

This is a non debate TM. What is, is. If Businesses are affected by legislation, then they have the right to fianncially support their candidate of choice. There is no valid argument against it.

except that they are not citizens.

 

[loosecannon]

How about a 24 hour Cable Network (like CSPAN) that provides programming for all candidates free of charge. It would show important debates and discussions of issues; local, state wide and national. The candidates would be given the opportunity (equal opportunity for all candidates that meet the ballot requirements) to campaign free of charge in their local areas or nationally if it were a national campaign.

This would not eliminate all costs as there would still be costs associated with producing the candidates programming, but it would provide an outlet for all to see/hear the different candidates positions.

As interested voters it would provide us with one place to go on TV where we could find this kind of message all day long at our convenience.

Immie

I say any channel can show it, the airwaves belong to the people and the stations use them at our pleasure.

Not to be argumentative...but the airwaves belong to no one.

they belong to everyone. As much as anything does. Like your house.

 

[loosecannon]

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.

Sure the average American is a fat lazy uneducated over opinionated lardass but that has nothing to do with the point....
Well I personally think campaign donations=buying votes and that is wrong. If you want to 'support' a candidate the way to do it is to VOTE FOR THEM & encourage others to VOTE FOR THEM. Why do they need you to BUY votes? I say our govt. should make it illegal to BUY VOTES!

of course you are absolutely correct.

 

[BrianH]

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.

quite the opposite.

Aren't the wealthiest in America already the only ones who can afford to run for office?? It's been a while since I've seen a middle-class American running for President.

 

[BenMarbleMD]

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.

quite the opposite.

Aren't the wealthiest in America already the only ones who can afford to run for office?? It's been a while since I've seen a middle-class American running for President.

those who support The Duopoly will oppose any/all ideas that will help to destroy it & as such their opposition is proof this is a good idea

 

[BrianH]

quite the opposite.

Aren't the wealthiest in America already the only ones who can afford to run for office?? It's been a while since I've seen a middle-class American running for President.

those who support The Duopoly will oppose any/all ideas that will help to destroy it & as such their opposition is proof this is a good idea

Oh I agree with you there. I'm not saying that this hypothetical scenario would actually come to be, but it would be nice.

 

[Defiant1]

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?

They don't.

 

[BenMarbleMD]

Oh I agree with you there. I'm not saying that this hypothetical scenario would actually come to be, but it would be nice.

yes it would