CDZ Should Corporations and Big Donors Be Limited in Donations to Politics?

[JimBowie1958]

So, again: why do you hate free speech?

The Koch brothers are spending over 800 million dollars on Republican candidates.
How is this free speech when it drowns out everyone else?

It's no different that me being able to yell louder than you.
Rather than bleat about unfair spending on republican candidates, why don't you dell ideas that people will buy?

No, it is different when one person can yell a million times louder than everyone else.

I am done discussing this with you as you are either retarded or not engaging in the discussion honestly.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No limits for anyone

However....FULL disclosure
I want to know who owns my Critter

If they can BUY the political whore it wont matter if the public knows who is doing it as the public would then be irrelevant.

 

[Dante]

Billionaires bankrolling 2016 campaign to unprecedented degree Fox News

"Billionaires are bankrolling the early days of the 2016 presidential campaign to an unprecedented degree, with at least 40 of the wealthiest Americans plowing $60 million into super PACs aligned with the top tier of candidates.

The torrent of super PAC money is revolutionizing presidential politics in the wake of a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that opened the door to unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and individuals into these outside groups.

Super PACs backing 17 presidential candidates raised more than $250 million in the first six months of this year, roughly doubling the $125 million raised by the candidates for their campaigns, disclosure reports filed Friday with the Federal Election Commission show."


This is stupid. Corporations and the wealthy elites are trying to buy our elections.

They can't buy an election. Who votes? Whether we want big money in the political process is another question. The Court has ruled.

BUT...

Here’s the amendment Stevens would enact to make sure money doesn’t influence politics:

Neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit the Congress or any state from imposing reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns.
​

John Paul Stevens Six Amendments - Business Insider

Notice Stevens words 'influence politics' not 'buy elections' because if an amendment used your words it would solve absolutely nothing. Nothing.

 

[Dante]

Campaign donations = free speech.

not exactly true, but that is what the Court has said in a narrow decision. So legally, yes. In reality, no.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, again: why do you hate free speech?

The Koch brothers are spending over 800 million dollars on Republican candidates.
How is this free speech when it drowns out everyone else?

It's no different that me being able to yell louder than you.
Rather than bleat about unfair spending on republican candidates, why don't you dell ideas that people will buy?

No, it is different when one person can yell a million times louder than everyone else.

Wait... its "unfair" that I can yell a million times louder than you?

If you have a message worth listening to, it doesn't matter how loud you speak;.

I am done discussing this with you...

... because you know you do not have a sound position, and you hate the fact that I point it out.
Run away! Run away!

 

[jasonnfree]

I didn't see an option for public financed elections only, which is what I would like to see. Even politicians admit that they spend most of their time begging for money. Why should they only consider input from those that donate anyway? There's enough resources and staff members, and phone calls and letters from the public for them to understand what the voters want.

 

[Dante]

I didn't see an option for public financed elections only, which is what I would like to see. Even politicians admit that they spend most of their time begging for money. Why should they only consider input from those that donate anyway? There's enough resources and staff members, and phone calls and letters from the public for them to understand what the voters want.

I don't see the public support for public finance. People in America can be brainwashed with just a few well placed attack ads and woooooosh! The sound of common sense and self-interest flying out the open windows

 

[JimBowie1958]

I didn't see an option for public financed elections only, which is what I would like to see. Even politicians admit that they spend most of their time begging for money. Why should they only consider input from those that donate anyway? There's enough resources and staff members, and phone calls and letters from the public for them to understand what the voters want.

I don't see the public support for public finance. People in America can be brainwashed with just a few well placed attack ads and woooooosh! The sound of common sense and self-interest flying out the open windows

The general public may be in favor of more campaign finance reform after this election

 

[jasonnfree]

I didn't see an option for public financed elections only, which is what I would like to see. Even politicians admit that they spend most of their time begging for money. Why should they only consider input from those that donate anyway? There's enough resources and staff members, and phone calls and letters from the public for them to understand what the voters want.

I don't see the public support for public finance. People in America can be brainwashed with just a few well placed attack ads and woooooosh! The sound of common sense and self-interest flying out the open windows

The attack ads will be there regardless of how elections are financed. The donations we see today are nothing but the buying and bribing of politicians and should be illegal. A couple weekends ago the repubs like cruz , jeb bush, walker came down here to orange county to perform for the coke bros. and other billionaires, like lapdogs or servants, which they ultimately will be if they win the election. Mitt romney was so bought off that sheldon adelson admitted that he threw 100 million romney's way to get obama out of the white house.

Olmert Netanyahu Interfered in U.S. Elections for Sheldon Adelson Haaretz Daily Newspaper Israel News

 

[Dante]

I didn't see an option for public financed elections only, which is what I would like to see. Even politicians admit that they spend most of their time begging for money. Why should they only consider input from those that donate anyway? There's enough resources and staff members, and phone calls and letters from the public for them to understand what the voters want.

I don't see the public support for public finance. People in America can be brainwashed with just a few well placed attack ads and woooooosh! The sound of common sense and self-interest flying out the open windows

The general public may be in favor of more campaign finance reform after this election

2012 was supposed to be terrible . It wasn't. I believe there is a point of diminishing returns on most of the big money spent. So worrying about a few more billion is pointless as far as I can see.

As with healthcare reform where there was always the public demand going back more than a few decades, with campaign finance initiatives the propaganda and misinformation will destroy public support. People are dumb, dumb, dumb. The more people that vote, the dumber the vote gets

 

[JimBowie1958]

They can't buy an election. Who votes? .

In effect they can buy the election the same way Romney bought the GOP nomination in 2012. His supposedly independent PAC run by his friends had unlimited funding, in effect. When they got low in cash Romney would go and do a speech in Wall Street, literally, to get more funding for them. But they were independent of his influence and control. Right.

This attack ad money overwhelm ed his opponents with hit pieces that ran 24/7 when needed. For example after the very conservative Newt Gingrich won South Carolina, Romney's attack PAC flooded the Florida air waves and by the end of the Florida primary Gingrich was viewed as a RINO. Yeah, Gingrich the RINO and Romney the true conservative was the prevailing opinion. The ability to convince the public that up was down is what is so dangerous about such big money in politics.

I worked at a business chain in a metro area that had just moved to that area three months before and they flooded the markets with advertising on every radio station and TV station. I had people coming to me or telling on the phone that they had bought their merchandise five years ago at that exact same store owned by that exact same company.

Modern advertising is regularly used to convince people that their service are strong where in fact they are extremely weak. Why improve service when you can just buy a bunch of ads and 'fix' the problem?

People who act like there is no problem with allowing corporations to flood the air waves with one sided coverage are either 1. stupid, 2. fools, or 3. corrupt and loves corporate control of our elections.

 

[Dante]

I didn't see an option for public financed elections only, which is what I would like to see. Even politicians admit that they spend most of their time begging for money. Why should they only consider input from those that donate anyway? There's enough resources and staff members, and phone calls and letters from the public for them to understand what the voters want.

I don't see the public support for public finance. People in America can be brainwashed with just a few well placed attack ads and woooooosh! The sound of common sense and self-interest flying out the open windows

The attack ads will be there regardless of how elections are financed. The donations we see today are nothing but the buying and bribing of politicians and should be illegal. A couple weekends ago the repubs came down here to orange country to perform for the cokes and other billionaires. Mitt romney was so bought off that sheldon adelson admitted that he threw 100 million romney's way to get obama out of the white house.

Olmert Netanyahu Interfered in U.S. Elections for Sheldon Adelson Haaretz Daily Newspaper Israel News

Should be illegal? I guess, but then again why should somebody be restricted from donating to campaigns? I know who Sheldon is from Massachusetts.

Like I posted previously:

2012 was supposed to be terrible . It wasn't. I believe there is a point of diminishing returns on most of the big money spent. So worrying about a few more billion is pointless as far as I can see.

As with healthcare reform where there was always the public demand going back more than a few decades, with campaign finance initiatives the propaganda and misinformation will destroy public support. People are dumb, dumb, dumb. The more people that vote, the dumber the vote gets​

 

[jasonnfree]

I didn't see an option for public financed elections only, which is what I would like to see. Even politicians admit that they spend most of their time begging for money. Why should they only consider input from those that donate anyway? There's enough resources and staff members, and phone calls and letters from the public for them to understand what the voters want.

I don't see the public support for public finance. People in America can be brainwashed with just a few well placed attack ads and woooooosh! The sound of common sense and self-interest flying out the open windows

The attack ads will be there regardless of how elections are financed. The donations we see today are nothing but the buying and bribing of politicians and should be illegal. A couple weekends ago the repubs came down here to orange country to perform for the cokes and other billionaires. Mitt romney was so bought off that sheldon adelson admitted that he threw 100 million romney's way to get obama out of the white house.

Olmert Netanyahu Interfered in U.S. Elections for Sheldon Adelson Haaretz Daily Newspaper Israel News

Should be illegal? I guess, but then again why should somebody be restricted from donating to campaigns? I know who Sheldon is from Massachusetts.

Like I posted previously:

2012 was supposed to be terrible . It wasn't. I believe there is a point of diminishing returns on most of the big money spent. So worrying about a few more billion is pointless as far as I can see.

As with healthcare reform where there was always the public demand going back more than a few decades, with campaign finance initiatives the propaganda and misinformation will destroy public support. People are dumb, dumb, dumb. The more people that vote, the dumber the vote gets​

It seems like you think that special interest funding of elections doesn't sway the candidates. If that were the case, then there would be diminishing returns for the big money donors and their donations would be dwindling year by year. But they are increasing year by year.

 

[JimBowie1958]

2012 was supposed to be terrible . It wasn't. I believe there is a point of diminishing returns on most of the big money spent. So worrying about a few more billion is pointless as far as I can see.

The 2012 election was terrible, that is if you think that one man coming in with hundreds of millions of dollars in cash and buying a disproportionate amount of air time to convince a plurality of the public that has IQs below the average on the Bell Curve is a bad thing. Yes, the impact of advertising is a matter of disproportionate results, but where that saturation point lies is well above the percentage numbers needed to win elections in a democratic process.

As with healthcare reform where there was always the public demand going back more than a few decades, with campaign finance initiatives the propaganda and misinformation will destroy public support. People are dumb, dumb, dumb. The more people that vote, the dumber the vote gets

With good leadership and regulated electoral advertising that prohibits say telling deliberate lies like 'My opponent used to suck Hitler's dick.' we can help stupid voters vote more intelligently. Of course you have to use a light touch here, but what Romney did to Gingrich was not a light touch by any means and it should have been stopped/prohibited by elections limits.

 

[Dante]

They can't buy an election. Who votes? .

In effect they can buy the election the same way Romney bought the GOP nomination in 2012. His supposedly independent PAC run by his friends had unlimited funding, in effect. When they got low in cash Romney would go and do a speech in Wall Street, literally, to get more funding for them. But they were independent of his influence and control. Right.

This attack ad money overwhelm ed his opponents with hit pieces that ran 24/7 when needed. For example after the very conservative Newt Gingrich won South Carolina, Romney's attack PAC flooded the Florida air waves and by the end of the Florida primary Gingrich was viewed as a RINO. Yeah, Gingrich the RINO and Romney the true conservative was the prevailing opinion. The ability to convince the public that up was down is what is so dangerous about such big money in politics.

I worked at a business chain in a metro area that had just moved to that area three months before and they flooded the markets with advertising on every radio station and TV station. I had people coming to me or telling on the phone that they had bought their merchandise five years ago at that exact same store owned by that exact same company.

Modern advertising is regularly used to convince people that their service are strong where in fact they are extremely weak. Why improve service when you can just buy a bunch of ads and 'fix' the problem?

People who act like there is no problem with allowing corporations to flood the air waves with one sided coverage are either 1. stupid, 2. fools, or 3. corrupt and loves corporate control of our elections.

Romney did not buy the 2012 GOP primary races.

You're arguing about gaming the system. Well with any reform the law of unintended consequences will have people gaming the new system. I'm not arguing doing nothing n the way of reform, just arguing the proposed simple solutions usually never work.

The problem with paying to close attention to the talking heads and popularity polls is you get a skewed picture or reality. The horse race and who is in the lead. Each primary race for a while had Romney behind, yet the voters went with Romney time and time again. Electability or the perception of it. That may be massaged by ad buys, but if people are that dumb, and I believe they are...less money will not solve that problem. A smart consultant with less money can accomplish the very same outcome.

I don''t know that I or others are arguing that there is no problem with allowing corporations to flood the air waves with one sided coverage. I believe the laws allow it. I also believe with less money...but I already made that point. An educated and informed electorate is the only thing that can save the system, but when sports and celebrity bs in the regular media and on social media get most of people's free time...we are doomed.

Propose a smart solution to getting people aware and involved rather than trying to legislate a way through

 

[Dante]

It seems like you think that special interest funding of elections doesn't sway the candidates. If that were the case, then there would be diminishing returns for the big money donors and their donations would be dwindling year by year. But they are increasing year by year.

Nothing could be further from the truth. But I was involved in local politics and up close on upper level politics. Candidates come out of the trenches of a party. Party activists vet candidates of their own respective parties. We have a huge number of independents, which means the electorate is mostly uninvolved or non enrolled. They do not get to vet candidates because they say they hate the parties.. Oh well, dumb is dumb.

As far as the diminishing returns. They all see it, but it''s like the arms race. How far to pull back and will an adversary fill the void and ... What did big money donors win or change in 2012?

 

[Dante]

2012 was supposed to be terrible . It wasn't. I believe there is a point of diminishing returns on most of the big money spent. So worrying about a few more billion is pointless as far as I can see.

The 2012 election was terrible, that is if you think that one man coming in with hundreds of millions of dollars in cash and buying a disproportionate amount of air time to convince a plurality of the public that has IQs below the average on the Bell Curve is a bad thing. Yes, the impact of advertising is a matter of disproportionate results, but where that saturation point lies is well above the percentage numbers needed to win elections in a democratic process.

As with healthcare reform where there was always the public demand going back more than a few decades, with campaign finance initiatives the propaganda and misinformation will destroy public support. People are dumb, dumb, dumb. The more people that vote, the dumber the vote gets

With good leadership and regulated electoral advertising that prohibits say telling deliberate lies like 'My opponent used to suck Hitler's dick.' we can help stupid voters vote more intelligently. Of course you have to use a light touch here, but what Romney did to Gingrich was not a light touch by any means and it should have been stopped/prohibited by elections limits.

I don't believe 2012 was anymore terrible than 2008, 2004, and 200, and 1996, and 1992, and...

I agree with your second part, but there's that damn constitution thing that keeps getting in the way. I like dirty politics up to a point -- the point where I am winning and can step back above the fray.

politics is a contact sport where I come from. There are invisible lines that should not be crossed, but as with obscenity "I know it when I see it"

 

[JimBowie1958]

Romney did not buy the 2012 GOP primary races.

Yes, he did, after South Carolina he did.
Mitt Romney Florida Primary Comeback Fueled By Deep Pockets Big Advertising Spending

"A newly feisty Mitt Romney, fighting for his political life, and his loyal super PAC unloaded on Gingrich in the Sunshine State with a massive spending binge that included wall-to-wall attack ads in a repeat of the assault that knocked Gingrich from the top of the polls in the run-up to the Iowa caucus.

The biggest spender in Florida -- the most expensive state in the Republican primary to date -- has been the pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future. Run by a trio of former Romney advisers, the group has spent $10.7 million in the state. The vast majority of that -- $9.9 million -- has gone into a barrage of ads, on television and radio, and direct mail attacking Gingrich. That's more than double what pro-Gingrich super PAC Winning Our Future is spending in Florida.

This is the opposite of what happened in South Carolina, where Winning Our Future was able to match the spending of Restore Our Future and provide Gingrich with room to win."

Romney spent $10 million to buy Florida and that should not be allowed by law.

You're arguing about gaming the system. Well with any reform the law of unintended consequences will have people gaming the new system. I'm not arguing doing nothing n the way of reform, just arguing the proposed simple solutions usually never work.

I am arguing for a complete ban on donations to candidates, but allowing it for issue driven groups, like pro-Choice groups, pro-gun groups, etc. The pro's could game that by trying to say that a candidates flaws are an issue but that should be specifically banned. We have plenty of cable channels to go around, set one aside for candidates to share and one for issue driven time and leave it at that. There was a time when candidates didn't start running for the POTUS until after LAbor Day. Whats wrong with going back to that?

The problem with paying to close attention to the talking heads and popularity polls is you get a skewed picture or reality. The horse race and who is in the lead. Each primary race for a while had Romney behind, yet the voters went with Romney time and time again. Electability or the perception of it. That may be massaged by ad buys, but if people are that dumb, and I believe they are...less money will not solve that problem. A smart consultant with less money can accomplish the very same outcome.

They did not go for Romney in South Carolina but did in Florida due to massive advertising. Romney also gamed the process by getting majorities in blue states/territories that will never vote for a GOP candidate like Guam, Puerto Rico and California and built a large early lead in delegates that had ZERO reflection of his support in red states or swing states. It was bullshit.

I don''t know that I or others are arguing that there is no problem with allowing corporations to flood the air waves with one sided coverage. I believe the laws allow it. I also believe with less money...but I already made that point. An educated and informed electorate is the only thing that can save the system, but when sports and celebrity bs in the regular media and on social media get most of people's free time...we are doomed.

We are not exactly doomed, but I do agree with your main point. Why people would rather watch some sports game that has absolutely no impact on their life other than a 2 hour high or low from a game result is a mystery to me. I think it is partly escapism, partly despair with the system. But in the end you wind up with a growing pool of voters who are angry and bitter about the system and wont do anything about it till a guy like Trump comes along.

Propose a smart solution to getting people aware and involved rather than trying to legislate a way through

The 100% ban is smart, IMO.

 

[JimBowie1958]

2012 was supposed to be terrible . It wasn't. I believe there is a point of diminishing returns on most of the big money spent. So worrying about a few more billion is pointless as far as I can see.

The 2012 election was terrible, that is if you think that one man coming in with hundreds of millions of dollars in cash and buying a disproportionate amount of air time to convince a plurality of the public that has IQs below the average on the Bell Curve is a bad thing. Yes, the impact of advertising is a matter of disproportionate results, but where that saturation point lies is well above the percentage numbers needed to win elections in a democratic process.

As with healthcare reform where there was always the public demand going back more than a few decades, with campaign finance initiatives the propaganda and misinformation will destroy public support. People are dumb, dumb, dumb. The more people that vote, the dumber the vote gets

With good leadership and regulated electoral advertising that prohibits say telling deliberate lies like 'My opponent used to suck Hitler's dick.' we can help stupid voters vote more intelligently. Of course you have to use a light touch here, but what Romney did to Gingrich was not a light touch by any means and it should have been stopped/prohibited by elections limits.

I don't believe 2012 was anymore terrible than 2008, 2004, and 200, and 1996, and 1992, and...

I agree with your second part, but there's that damn constitution thing that keeps getting in the way. I like dirty politics up to a point -- the point where I am winning and can step back above the fray.

politics is a contact sport where I come from. There are invisible lines that should not be crossed, but as with obscenity "I know it when I see it"

Yes, a real reform may require a Constitutional convention since the SCOTUS has gone insane, but that is just one more issue building for a States Constitutional Amendment Article V Convention. I would love to see it.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Billionaires bankrolling 2016 campaign to unprecedented degree Fox News

"Billionaires are bankrolling the early days of the 2016 presidential campaign to an unprecedented degree, with at least 40 of the wealthiest Americans plowing $60 million into super PACs aligned with the top tier of candidates.

The torrent of super PAC money is revolutionizing presidential politics in the wake of a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that opened the door to unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and individuals into these outside groups.

Super PACs backing 17 presidential candidates raised more than $250 million in the first six months of this year, roughly doubling the $125 million raised by the candidates for their campaigns, disclosure reports filed Friday with the Federal Election Commission show."


This is stupid. Corporations and the wealthy elites are trying to buy our elections.

I think it is time for publicly funded campaigns. And the amount should be something reasonable, like 10 million tops for each candidate. Or less.

Money is ruining the democratic process in the U.S. ON BOTH SIDES. A personal limit of $2500 sounds reasonable.