Campaign donations.

[CultureCitizen]

Should campaign donations have a low ceiling ( e.g. the minimum wage of a day per election) ?

My position follows :
A) Greed is the engine that makes capitalism move.
B) Most of the elements in the system are fueled by greed.
C) Politicians beneffit from large donations from persons and corporations
D) Politicians will want to keep the donations flowing as they recieve a beneffit from them.
E) From D, it follows large donnors and corporations will have a leverage on the policies dictated by the recipients of their donations.

... I somehow get the impression this line of though went unnoticed by the Supreme Court .

Share your thoughts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Should campaign donations have a low ceiling

No.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Should campaign donations have a low ceiling

No.

Care to share the reasons for your answer?

 

[EatMorChikin]

Yes they should, elected positions shouldn't go to the highest bidder. Love Lincoln or hate him, he wouldn't have been wealthy enough to run in today's politics.

Each one should be given a certain amount of air time / ad spots, and that's it. The rest should be done pounding the pavement, which obviously would still give the more financed crook the upper hand. But at least the playing field would be leveled somewhat.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Where I live all public school employees have NEA union dues extracted from their pay whether they join the union or not. The NEA funds the DNC.
UPS garnishes wages for first year employees for union dues but offers no union benefits until they've been on the job for a year. That union funds the DNC.

 

[Kosh]

Heavy Hitters Top All-Time Donors 1989-2014 OpenSecrets

It depends on ones political leanings..

 

[Mr. H.]

Voters should form their opinions with careful research, not from watching political infomercials funded by donations.

Such donations fund disinformation campaigns more than anything.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Should campaign donations have a low ceiling

No.

Care to share the reasons for your answer?

Free speech.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Free speech.

I fail to see the link between a donation and the expresion of ones ideas and opinions. It is a rather convoluted line of thought which lead the Supreme Court to that conclusion.

Even if it does undermine freedom of speech. It would undermine equality of oportunity as larger donors would get a bigger chance to make their voice heard.

Furthermore, it may lead into a corrupt state which puts the interests of large donors before those that make small or no donations.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Free speech.

I fail to see the link between a donation and the expresion of ones ideas and opinions. It is a rather convoluted line of thought which lead the Supreme Court to that conclusion.

Even if it does undermine freedom of speech. It would undermine equality of oportunity as larger donors would get a bigger chance to make their voice heard.

Furthermore, it may lead into a corrupt state which puts the interests of large donors before those that make small or no donations.

I fail to see the link between a donation and the expresion of ones ideas and opinions.

It takes money to get your message out.
So why should we limit donations?
Where does the government, constitutionally, get that power?

Even if it does undermine freedom of speech. It would undermine equality of oportunity as larger donors would get a bigger chance to make their voice heard.

It puts corporations on a more equal footing with unions.

Furthermore, it may lead into a corrupt state which puts the interests of large donors before those that make small or no donations.

Shrink government 60%, people will have less reason to buy government.

 

[Nyvin]

Free speech.

I fail to see the link between a donation and the expresion of ones ideas and opinions. It is a rather convoluted line of thought which lead the Supreme Court to that conclusion.

Even if it does undermine freedom of speech. It would undermine equality of oportunity as larger donors would get a bigger chance to make their voice heard.

Furthermore, it may lead into a corrupt state which puts the interests of large donors before those that make small or no donations.

I fail to see the link between a donation and the expresion of ones ideas and opinions.

It takes money to get your message out.
So why should we limit donations?
Where does the government, constitutionally, get that power?

Even if it does undermine freedom of speech. It would undermine equality of oportunity as larger donors would get a bigger chance to make their voice heard.

It puts corporations on a more equal footing with unions.

Furthermore, it may lead into a corrupt state which puts the interests of large donors before those that make small or no donations.

Shrink government 60%, people will have less reason to buy government.

You can limit Union donations at the same time as limited corporate donations

 

[CultureCitizen]

Free speech.

It takes money to get your message out.
So why should we limit donations?
Where does the government, constitutionally, get that power?

You can allways use that money to publish an article or buy yourself time on TV, create a podcast webcast etc, without giving that money to the party.

It puts corporations on a more equal footing with unions.

Unions should not donate either , citizens vote , companies and unions don't


Shrink government 60%, people will have less reason to buy government

No more nor less.Imagine a monopolic company who wanted to put a loophole in antitrust laws. The size of the government doesn't play into the ecuation ( allegedly the smaller the better, because it has to spend less money) .
The company and the candidates could agree to put the loopholes in exchange for a very big donation for the campaign... and the bigger the donation , the easier it is to hide some "gift" for the candidate.

 

[g5000]

Should campaign donations have a low ceiling ( e.g. the minimum wage of a day per election) ?

My position follows :
A) Greed is the engine that makes capitalism move.
B) Most of the elements in the system are fueled by greed.
C) Politicians beneffit from large donations from persons and corporations
D) Politicians will want to keep the donations flowing as they recieve a beneffit from them.
E) From D, it follows large donnors and corporations will have a leverage on the policies dictated by the recipients of their donations.

... I somehow get the impression this line of though went unnoticed by the Supreme Court .

Share your thoughts.

Let's use the Socratic method here. I will ask you a question, you answer it, and based on your answer, I will ask another question. Then we will see where this leads us.

Let's begin:

Why does a donor or corporation donate to a politician?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Free speech.

It takes money to get your message out.
So why should we limit donations?
Where does the government, constitutionally, get that power?

You can allways use that money to publish an article or buy yourself time on TV, create a podcast webcast etc, without giving that money to the party.

It puts corporations on a more equal footing with unions.

Unions should not donate either , citizens vote , companies and unions don't


Shrink government 60%, people will have less reason to buy government

No more nor less.Imagine a monopolic company who wanted to put a loophole in antitrust laws. The size of the government doesn't play into the ecuation ( allegedly the smaller the better, because it has to spend less money) .
The company and the candidates could agree to put the loopholes in exchange for a very big donation for the campaign... and the bigger the donation , the easier it is to hide some "gift" for the candidate.

You can allways use that money to publish an article or buy yourself time on TV, create a podcast webcast etc, without giving that money to the party.


Yes, I could do that to support a favored candidate, or I could give to the candidate directly.

No more nor less.Imagine a monopolic company who wanted to put a loophole in antitrust laws.

I imagine a "green" energy company that donates to a favored candidate.
I imagine that candidate then giving his donor a loan guarantee that costs tax payers half a billion.
Then I realize if the government wasn't so big, it couldn't throw money like that around.
I imagine a government that can require corn ethanol be placed in every gas tank in the country,
and the distortions that could cause in the world food supply. And the donations that flow to the politicians,
because the government is just too damn big.

 

[CultureCitizen]

And the donations that flow to the politicians,
because the government is just too damn big.

Again , the size of the government doesn't play a role. The amount of money that flows into the politicians hands with donations is more important.

 

[g5000]

And the donations that flow to the politicians,
because the government is just too damn big.

Again , the size of the government doesn't play a role. The amount of money that flows into the politicians hands with donations is more important.

Why does a donor or corporation donate to a politician?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And the donations that flow to the politicians,
because the government is just too damn big.

Again , the size of the government doesn't play a role. The amount of money that flows into the politicians hands with donations is more important.

Again , the size of the government doesn't play a role.

Is the government big enough to throw $500 million loan guarantees around for "green" energy?
Suddenly "green" energy companies want to buy access to government.

The amount of money that flows into the politicians hands with donations is more important.

If the federal government controlled only 5% of GDP, would huge donations be flowing to politicians?
Would donations be larger if government controlled 20%. Would they be even larger if government controlled 30%?
Why or why not?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Why does a donor or corporation donate to a politician?

Because it considers it will enact policies which are favorable for it.
Now, I am not completely against donations, but I consider that those donations must have a ceiling.

Say you have a ngo and several donnors which might suggest the best way in which the ngo should advance.
One donnor donates $1,000,000 and the rest of the donnors donate $10,000 .
Now tell me you wouldn't feel more inclined to listen to the ideas of the really big donnor.

 

[CultureCitizen]

And the donations that flow to the politicians,
because the government is just too damn big.

Again , the size of the government doesn't play a role. The amount of money that flows into the politicians hands with donations is more important.

Again , the size of the government doesn't play a role.

Is the government big enough to throw $500 million loan guarantees around for "green" energy?
Suddenly "green" energy companies want to buy access to government.

The amount of money that flows into the politicians hands with donations is more important.

If the federal government controlled only 5% of GDP, would huge donations be flowing to politicians?
Would donations be larger if government controlled 20%. Would they be even larger if government controlled 30%?
Why or why not?

There are several aspects to your question:
1) The level of corruption of the country in general and the level of corruption of the politicians
2) How easily that money can be turned into a personal beneffit.

The size of the government spending is not a factor.
Take a look at the countries with the smallest gov expenditure as a percent of gdp :
Samoa, Nigeria, United Arab Emirates , Central african republic , lao pdr , guatemala , benin , singapure.
With the notable exception of singapore ( which is very close to a city state), none of these countries are characterized by their transparency and low levels of curruption I would argue that a very low % of gdp means not only small government but no governance.

If we look at the contries with high expenditure we find very mixed results:
Greece, France , New Zeland , Belgium, Portugal ,Kiribati , Afghanistan , New Zeland , Ireland , Denmark.

In some of these nations the government corruption is low and in some others high
My conclusion is that government size and how corruptible is the government are two variables with no causal link.
But if you can back your theory with some references I will be glad to discuss them.

Expense of GDP Data Table

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And the donations that flow to the politicians,
because the government is just too damn big.

Again , the size of the government doesn't play a role. The amount of money that flows into the politicians hands with donations is more important.

Again , the size of the government doesn't play a role.

Is the government big enough to throw $500 million loan guarantees around for "green" energy?
Suddenly "green" energy companies want to buy access to government.

The amount of money that flows into the politicians hands with donations is more important.

If the federal government controlled only 5% of GDP, would huge donations be flowing to politicians?
Would donations be larger if government controlled 20%. Would they be even larger if government controlled 30%?
Why or why not?

There are several aspects to your question:
1) The level of corruption of the country in general and the level of corruption of the politicians
2) How easily that money can be turned into a personal beneffit.

The size of the government spending is not a factor.
Take a look at the countries with the smallest gov expenditure as a percent of gdp :
Samoa, Nigeria, United Arab Emirates , Central african republic , lao pdr , guatemala , benin , singapure.
With the notable exception of singapore ( which is very close to a city state), none of these countries are characterized by their transparency and low levels of curruption I would argue that a very low % of gdp means not only small government but no governance.

If we look at the contries with high expenditure we find very mixed results:
Greece, France , New Zeland , Belgium, Portugal ,Kiribati , Afghanistan , New Zeland , Ireland , Denmark.

In some of these nations the government corruption is low and in some others high
My conclusion is that government size and how corruptible is the government are two variables with no causal link.
But if you can back your theory with some references I will be glad to discuss them.

Expense of GDP Data Table

The size of the government spending is not a factor.

It's not just spending, it's also control.
The more spending, the more control, the greater the incentive to buy a politician.

The level of corruption of the country in general and the level of corruption of the politicians

What allows more potential for corruption, a government that spends $1 trillion or one that spends $3 trillion?