Personally, there should be no limit, but it should be transparent and shouldn't be done through some sort of middle-man agency.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 08, 2014, 12:07:15 PMPersonally, there should be no limit, but it should be transparent and shouldn't be done through some sort of middle-man agency.So. If Bill Gates wants to donate a billion dollars to someone's campaign, that should be fine?I'm not saying I disagree with you, but without a limit, we are essentially making it so that only the rich, or those with good connections, have a chance in elections.
It certainly, however, shouldn't be funded by the taxpayer. But I'm not knowledgeable enough to pontificate on the American situation.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 08, 2014, 12:10:46 PMIt certainly, however, shouldn't be funded by the taxpayer. But I'm not knowledgeable enough to pontificate on the American situation.What do you mean by this?
No limit. Let people spend their money however they like.
Corporations shouldn't be allowed to invest money into political campaigns whatsoever
Nobody should be allowed to donate anything. Money shouldn't even be a factor.
Here's a list of the top 50 richest Senators, with the top 10 consisting of 7 Democrats (tells you a lot with just that)http://www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th.html
I'm split on this. One one hand you obviously have corporations bribing officials. On the other hand donating to your candidate can be viewed as an expression of your 1st Amendment and restricting that would be restricting the 1st Amendment. Really interested to see where this goes. Although seeing as how politicians, especially Senators, are wealthy individuals they have friends and connections who do donate large amounts to campaign funds.Here's a list of the top 50 richest Senators, with the top 10 consisting of 7 Democrats (tells you a lot with just that)http://www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th.html
Quote from: Kinder_ on September 08, 2014, 02:21:00 PMHere's a list of the top 50 richest Senators, with the top 10 consisting of 7 Democrats (tells you a lot with just that)http://www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th.htmlThe Top Ten is sharply divided at the Top 3, in terms of their wealth. The Top 3 rank in at 292 Million, 212 million, and 198 million.After that, it drops down to 81.6 million. That is a huge drop. So don't post a link, say "Hey! 7/10 of the richest Senators are Democrats!", without addressing the face that Conservatives' wealth is nearly one hundred million more than the richest Democrat.
Quote from: Kinder_ on September 08, 2014, 02:21:00 PMI'm split on this. One one hand you obviously have corporations bribing officials. On the other hand donating to your candidate can be viewed as an expression of your 1st Amendment and restricting that would be restricting the 1st Amendment. Really interested to see where this goes. Although seeing as how politicians, especially Senators, are wealthy individuals they have friends and connections who do donate large amounts to campaign funds.Here's a list of the top 50 richest Senators, with the top 10 consisting of 7 Democrats (tells you a lot with just that)http://www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th.htmlThe first amendment applies to people.Corporations and Super PACs are not people
Quote from: TrussingDoor on September 08, 2014, 08:42:57 PMQuote from: Kinder_ on September 08, 2014, 02:21:00 PMI'm split on this. One one hand you obviously have corporations bribing officials. On the other hand donating to your candidate can be viewed as an expression of your 1st Amendment and restricting that would be restricting the 1st Amendment. Really interested to see where this goes. Although seeing as how politicians, especially Senators, are wealthy individuals they have friends and connections who do donate large amounts to campaign funds.Here's a list of the top 50 richest Senators, with the top 10 consisting of 7 Democrats (tells you a lot with just that)http://www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th.htmlThe first amendment applies to people.Corporations and Super PACs are not peopleActually, corporations are people. Defined by legal standards of course and can express Constitutional rights
Actually, corporations are people.
Quote from: Kinder_ on September 08, 2014, 11:35:53 PMQuote from: TrussingDoor on September 08, 2014, 08:42:57 PMQuote from: Kinder_ on September 08, 2014, 02:21:00 PMI'm split on this. One one hand you obviously have corporations bribing officials. On the other hand donating to your candidate can be viewed as an expression of your 1st Amendment and restricting that would be restricting the 1st Amendment. Really interested to see where this goes. Although seeing as how politicians, especially Senators, are wealthy individuals they have friends and connections who do donate large amounts to campaign funds.Here's a list of the top 50 richest Senators, with the top 10 consisting of 7 Democrats (tells you a lot with just that)http://www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th.htmlThe first amendment applies to people.Corporations and Super PACs are not peopleActually, corporations are people. Defined by legal standards of course and can express Constitutional rightsThat's the problem - corporations shouldn't be legally defined as people. Corporations are made up of people, but it shouldn't have the constitutional rights of a person, itself.
Quote from: Kinder_ on September 09, 2014, 12:59:11 AMQuote from: Mad Max on September 09, 2014, 12:28:07 AMQuote from: Kinder_ on September 08, 2014, 11:35:53 PMQuote from: TrussingDoor on September 08, 2014, 08:42:57 PMQuote from: Kinder_ on September 08, 2014, 02:21:00 PMI'm split on this. One one hand you obviously have corporations bribing officials. On the other hand donating to your candidate can be viewed as an expression of your 1st Amendment and restricting that would be restricting the 1st Amendment. Really interested to see where this goes. Although seeing as how politicians, especially Senators, are wealthy individuals they have friends and connections who do donate large amounts to campaign funds.Here's a list of the top 50 richest Senators, with the top 10 consisting of 7 Democrats (tells you a lot with just that)http://www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th.htmlThe first amendment applies to people.Corporations and Super PACs are not peopleActually, corporations are people. Defined by legal standards of course and can express Constitutional rightsThat's the problem - corporations shouldn't be legally defined as people. Corporations are made up of people, but it shouldn't have the constitutional rights of a person, itself.And I have to disagree. Not giving corporations equal Constitutional protection means the government can go in and take phone records from Verizon and information from Google. It also means corporations can't fully express themselves as they are not protected by the 1st AmendmentAnd there's a problem with that?
Quote from: Mad Max on September 09, 2014, 12:28:07 AMQuote from: Kinder_ on September 08, 2014, 11:35:53 PMQuote from: TrussingDoor on September 08, 2014, 08:42:57 PMQuote from: Kinder_ on September 08, 2014, 02:21:00 PMI'm split on this. One one hand you obviously have corporations bribing officials. On the other hand donating to your candidate can be viewed as an expression of your 1st Amendment and restricting that would be restricting the 1st Amendment. Really interested to see where this goes. Although seeing as how politicians, especially Senators, are wealthy individuals they have friends and connections who do donate large amounts to campaign funds.Here's a list of the top 50 richest Senators, with the top 10 consisting of 7 Democrats (tells you a lot with just that)http://www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th.htmlThe first amendment applies to people.Corporations and Super PACs are not peopleActually, corporations are people. Defined by legal standards of course and can express Constitutional rightsThat's the problem - corporations shouldn't be legally defined as people. Corporations are made up of people, but it shouldn't have the constitutional rights of a person, itself.And I have to disagree. Not giving corporations equal Constitutional protection means the government can go in and take phone records from Verizon and information from Google. It also means corporations can't fully express themselves as they are not protected by the 1st Amendment
Not giving corporations equal Constitutional protection means the government can go in and take phone records from Verizon and information from Google
In Honor of the Vote for a 28th Amendment...
