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

[JimBowie1958]

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.

I could not possibly agree with you more, other than to totally ban all campaign finance cvompletely.

 

[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.

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.

Nice idea. Illegal, but nice

 

[Dante]

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.

Romney did not buy the 2012 GOP primary races.

Romney did not buy Florida.

The flaw in your argument, and it's a major one, is that often times the most money loses.

The "pool of voters who are angry and bitter about the system" have become the party bases because people have ceded the parties to them.

These are all bitter truths I've seen with my own eyes

one thing, why do you keep mention Trump as if he has a truly large following willing to vote for him? HE doesn't.

 

[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"

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.

Until very recently UI was against a constitutional convention because I could not name 12 people I would trust to adjust the damn thing. But now, I don't really care if they screw it up or not. I believe we get what we deserve if not what we want

 

[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.

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.

I could not possibly agree with you more, other than to totally ban all campaign finance cvompletely.

That sounds too irrational. The problem as I've always seen it is people acting out of frustration. That almost always guarantees a short sighted shitty result

 

[JimBowie1958]

Romney did not buy the 2012 GOP primary races.

Not literally , but he did in effect by overwhelming his opponent with advertising.

Romney did not buy Florida.

Yes, he did.

The flaw in your argument, and it's a major one, is that often times the most money loses.

Sometimes it does lose, which means you didn't spend enough even though it might have been the most spent.

The "pool of voters who are angry and bitter about the system" have become the party bases because people have ceded the parties to them.

To some degree, but when the party establishment has duly elected chairmen thrown out of a convention by force and without the support of the rules, that is no fault of the voters. Nor is it when the establishment violates their own rules to have secret meetings to purge their internal opposition within the party. Or to kidnap their opposition by driving them around aimlessly for hours and forcing them to miss crucial rules change votes. Or that simply refuse to accept delegates and sett them because they were controlled by internal rivals, etc.

The GOP has done all these things to their internal dissidents and they laugh about it. IT will eventually bite them in the ass because the Bread and circuses are having their own diminishing effect as well and the natives are getting restless.

These are all bitter truths I've seen with my own eyes

Well, maybe you think you did, but just wasn't paying attention to all the skullduggery going on around you?

one thing, why do you keep mention Trump as if he has a truly large following willing to vote for him? HE doesn't.

Right now he has 32% and growing. Such a plurality is all that is needed when you have 16 candidates. His support is snowballing pretty strongly. This nomination process might already be effectively over

 

[JimBowie1958]

[That sounds too irrational. The problem as I've always seen it is people acting out of frustration. That almost always guarantees a short sighted shitty result

There is nothing irrational about purging corporate money out of the system by any means necessary.

 

[Dante]

Romney did not buy the 2012 GOP primary races.

Not literally , but he did in effect by overwhelming his opponent with advertising.

Romney did not buy Florida.

Yes, he did.

The flaw in your argument, and it's a major one, is that often times the most money loses.

Sometimes it does lose, which means you didn't spend enough even though it might have been the most spent.

The "pool of voters who are angry and bitter about the system" have become the party bases because people have ceded the parties to them.

To some degree, but when the party establishment has duly elected chairmen thrown out of a convention by force and without the support of the rules, that is no fault of the voters. Nor is it when the establishment violates their own rules to have secret meetings to purge their internal opposition within the party. Or to kidnap their opposition by driving them around aimlessly for hours and forcing them to miss crucial rules change votes. Or that simply refuse to accept delegates and sett them because they were controlled by internal rivals, etc.

The GOP has done all these things to their internal dissidents and they laugh about it. IT will eventually bite them in the ass because the Bread and circuses are having their own diminishing effect as well and the natives are getting restless.

These are all bitter truths I've seen with my own eyes

Well, maybe you think you did, but just wasn't paying attention to all the skullduggery going on around you?

one thing, why do you keep mention Trump as if he has a truly large following willing to vote for him? HE doesn't.

Right now he has 32% and growing. Such a plurality is all that is needed when you have 16 candidates. His support is snowballing pretty strongly. This nomination process might already be effectively over

you've lost me with this one

but

thanks for playing well

 

[JimBowie1958]

Until very recently I was against a constitutional convention because I could not name 12 people I would trust to adjust the damn thing. But now, I don't really care if they screw it up or not. I believe we get what we deserve if not what we want

With about 6 recent SCOTUS decisions and the inability to get Congress to even vote on a budget much less a balanced budget, I am more than ready to throw the dice, and there are millions more like me.

 

[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.

Nice idea. Illegal, but nice

Well that is the problem yes. The very people that we want to keep from buying their seats in Congress or the White House are the people that won't allow WE THE PEOPLE to change the campaign finance laws.

And this seems to be one area where most people regardless of party want to see change for the sake of the country.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Well that is the problem yes. The very people that we want to keep from buying their seats in Congress or the White House are the people that won't allow WE THE PEOPLE to change the campaign finance laws.

And this seems to be one area where most people regardless of party want to see change for the sake of the country.

That is why we need a States Constitutional Amendment Article V Convention.

Anything passed by said convention will still have to be approved by 3/4ths of the states, so it cant turn into a run away convention. The states would reject anything looney.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Short version:
The other side has more money! Waaah!

 

[peach174]

Change the tax law and that changes the lobbying and special interests.
That way Corporations won't get special polices written up just for them as payback.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Depends on whether you want legal elections.

The Republicans have made it very clear they do not and now both sides are whores to those with the most money.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Change the tax law and that changes the lobbying and special interests.
That way Corporations won't get special polices written up just for them as payback.

I like the idea of a 14% flat tax, with Social Security and Medicaid rolled into it, and all corporate tax breaks swept away except one; they could take 30% of their American labor costs out of their profits for tax purposes, a double dip, if you will, and watch jobs come pouring back into this country.

But we don't insist on corporations taxes being put to work for the entire country, just to pump up the corporate profits that are assumed will be spent in the US, a bad assumption today. And then, as Trump says, the rest of the world laughs their asses off at us for being such suckers and complete fools.

 

[Dante]

Short version:
The other side has more money! Waaah!

You're post is a reactionary one with this

Obama won in 2012 by spending tons of money. There is lots of money being spent on ALL sides. The true sides are the wealthy top 1/10 of 1% against the rest of America

 

[Dante]

Change the tax law and that changes the lobbying and special interests.
That way Corporations won't get special polices written up just for them as payback.

I like the idea of a 14% flat tax, with Social Security and Medicaid rolled into it, and all corporate tax breaks swept away except one; they could take 30% of their American labor costs out of their profits for tax purposes, a double dip, if you will, and watch jobs come pouring back into this country.

But we don't insist on corporations taxes being put to work for the entire country, just to pump up the corporate profits that are assumed will be spent in the US, a bad assumption today. And then, as Trump says, the rest of the world laughs their asses off at us for being such suckers and complete fools.

Flat taxes are pushed by the very people that want unlimited donations... the super wealthy.

you're actually siding with what the corrupt and greedy want. Your post leans reactionary on this one.

 

[jillian]

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.

funny how there's no choice for "there shouldn't be any money in politics".

not surprising.

 

[Dante]

Change the tax law and that changes the lobbying and special interests.
That way Corporations won't get special polices written up just for them as payback.

And people with fund a way around that. It is human nature to game the system.

 

[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.

funny how there's no choice for "there shouldn't be any money in politics".

not surprising.

no money in politics or in elections?

We have a constitutionally protected right to petition our government. this equals spending money