• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Get Money Out

Risky Thicket

Sewer Rat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
37,249
Reaction score
42,848
Location
With Yo Mama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Would you encourage your Congressman to support the Constitutional Amendment below? Would you vote for the amendment?

"No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office."

It was written by Jimmy Williams at the Washington Insider.


I think it's a hell of a non-partisan idea.
 

So how would campaigns be funded?
 
Elections would have to be federally and equally funded. Hell, it would cost us all a lot less money to have a Congress that answers to the people who voted for them.
 
I signed this petition yesterday. If it passes, it will be a giant step in the right direction. Our political system has been a victim of the corrupting influence of bad campaign financing policy for far too long.
 
Wonder if this is relevant:

In February 1988, Capitol Police carried Senator Bob Packwood feet first into the Senate chamber. This occurred after the Senate ordered the arrest of absent senators to maintain a quorum during a filibuster on campaign finance legislation.
U.S. Senate: Art & History Home > Historical Minutes > 1787-1800 > The Senate Enforces Attendance

"1994 Congressional Campaign Spending Limit and Election Reform Act. From
10:00 a.m. on September 22 to 4:41 p.m. on September 23 (30 hours, 41 minutes)."
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.senate.gov%2Freference%2FSess ions%2FAll_Night.pdf&rct=j&q=longes%20senate%20session&ei=g1GOTZPSHZCJ0QGVzIWrCw&usg=AFQjCNGs_3GemowtGvKynK3aer-BokhnIw&cad=rja


[video]http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SenateSession53/start/5928/stop/8458[/video]

[video]http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SenateSession54/start/40860/stop/40977[/video]

Maybe the c-span archive videos and other info above will be useful to someone who might be seeking historical information/debates on the subject.

I seriously doubt the politicians are going to voluntarily give up their gains.
 
Just1Voice said:
I signed this petition yesterday. If it passes, it will be a giant step in the right direction. Our political system has been a victim of the corrupting influence of bad campaign financing policy for far too long.
Click to expand...

I signed it today. I would imagine there wouldn't be many against it save lobbyists and the people who listen to them. It believe it's an idea whose time has come. No matter what a person's political persuasion I believe most people would like private money out of elections. Some on the Internet today said that 94% of the time the winner of a federal election is the person who raised the most money. This proposed amendment would change that. That would be a wonderful thing.
 

No I am against it.

Why shouldn't I be able to contribute my money to those political organizations that represent my interests? By financially support those organizations that represent the interests I wish to promote it helps to promote them in government. Also, it will stifle free speech as nobody can provide contributions against a campaign running for federal office. So that will stifle every political commentator who speaks out against a candidate, which will stifle our political speech.

If you want to get better politicians the way to do so is not to go after the money but rather to educate the electorate and get them to act against corruption and to lobby for methods to help root it out. Not by trying to limit people's freedoms.
 

So what you are saying then is that money trumps votes. I disagree. Money decides who will be the chair of House and Senate committees and often even who serves of choice committees.


That is just plain wrong. Where then is the individual autonomy of you elected representative? I barely exists.

It is foolish to believe that you can outspend big pharma, for an example or Wall Street. You can't. So then who do the laws favor regarding pharmaceuticals and banking and investment? We bloody well know the answer to that question. Further, Sam, I don't believe that you honestly want foreign money controlling American policy. In several ways it does and it will continue unless the People change the system. In essence the Saudi royal family has controls power in American policy than you do or me or all of us on this board combined. You are OK with that. I am not. Money takes the reason out of every political issue. Under the current election campaign laws one man, one vote is a travesty.
 
I would not support that in any way. I do believe there is too much money-grubbing going on in politics, but turning the financing of an election over to the goverment is the wrong way to go about fixing things.

I would prefer a different type of amendment....

"All contributions to a candidate for political office, whether local, state, or national shall be made by individuals who are legally allowed to vote upon the office for which that candidate is running. Corporations and all other entities which are not legally capable of voting shall not be allowed to contribute to political campaigns at all. Additionally, the total amount of value that an individual may contribute to candidates is limited to $100 per year, and an individual shall only be permitted to contribute to one candidate for each office on the ballot."
 

1) You are trying to get money out of politics. While that is an admirable goal, it's not going to happen. Why? Because money IS politics. So no matter what you try to do there will always be some kind of loophole or legal maneuvering that will make prohibition more costly than acceptance.

2) You are against foreign money manipulating American politics. But what you must also realize is that American money manipulates foreign politics. The reason for this is because global money manipulates global politics, which is where our world is at now. Now you can fight it but you're going to lose. Because even if you win, again, they will find loopholes to get their way anyways. So we might as well keep it as transparent as we can because prohibiting it will not stop it - it will only push it underground.

3) Maybe I did not word my original post clearly enough because you seem to have overlooked my concerns with that amendment as it was written. As it is written, ""No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office."

So what one interpretation of this law could mean is that I am not allowed to sponsor a commercial on Comedy Central for "The Daily Show" because their commentary may be critical of a candidate for federal office. This is because the cast of "The Daily Show" may be critical of a candidate, and my sponsorship of their show may be seen as an indirect contribution opposed to that candidate's campaign for federal office.

So what this constitutional amendment, as written, may do is lead to a stifling of political discourse in our country. That is wrong, no matter what good you intend. Stifling the free exchange of ideas when it comes to politics will do more hurt to this nation than allowing interests to openly provide contributions to candidates.

The harm that such an amendment would do far exceeds any benefits that are intended by its passage.
 

This amendment is better worded, but how would it be enforced, and what would the punishment be for breaking it?
 
 
samsmart said:
This amendment is better worded, but how would it be enforced, and what would the punishment be for breaking it?
Click to expand...
How about conducting an audit for each campaign and since breaking that law would be considered contempt for the voting process, they should lose the right to contribute money and the right to vote.
 
Don't they already? And don't corporations (the ones overseas also) do that to? (So that they don't have to worry about being targeted by laws)
 

It should read that you are limited to $100 per year, and that you could only contribute to one of the candidates running for any particular office. So if Fred and John are both running for Sherriff, you can only contribute to ONE of their campaigns, not both; and whatever monies you contribute would go towards that $100 limit per year.
 
votewho2012 said:
How about conducting an audit for each campaign and since breaking that law would be considered contempt for the voting process, they should lose the right to contribute money and the right to vote.
Click to expand...

The easist way would be not to contribute directly to the candidates, but to a clearing house that would then send weekly/monthly checks to the candidate's treasurer instead of getting hundreds of individual checks. Since you can only donate in the location where you are eligible to vote, that should make record keeping pretty simple. Breaking the law would be punished with a revocation of the right to contribute for a period of time, and if caught a second time, loss of the right to contribute at all.
 

My thoughts exactly, well said.
 
other said:
My thoughts exactly, well said.
Click to expand...

So you are happy with the fact that big contributors, foreign nations, lobbyists (and the special interests they represent) will ALWAYS have the upper hand. If Goldman Sachs dictates policy and law - and they do - you are fine with that? Or is it that you would rather give up going in? Or maybe one day you plan to be wealthy enough to control government. Good luck with that.
 

No, but with respect I don't think your idea would be a solution to the problem. In my view, the best way of keeping big money interests from buying off policy-makers isn't to give more regulation to policy-makers to police them. Won't work, most policy-makers can't be trusted to stand for the principle of law in the face of juicy bribes; you'll just drive contributions further underground.

I'd rather work on the issue by placing more restrictions on the policy-makers' ability to pull strings for the interests in the first place. If moneyed interests don't have any substantial kickbacks available to them they won't have the incentive to send in the corporate lawyers and lobbyists to push for the strings to be pulled. It's a different angle... where bribes can be funneled or concealed relatively easily, the general populace will have to be made aware of the laws on the books. If the folks throwing out the kickbacks are stripped of that power, that's the first step in the right direction. In other words, I don't blame interests for lobbying to get their cut in a system where everyone else is throwing in, I blame the folks in Washington who play the middleman, and always throw the blame elsewhere when the **** hits the fan.
 
Risky Thicket said:
I think it's a hell of a non-partisan idea.
Click to expand...

I think it's dumb. First of all, contributing to a political campaign is a form of political speech, and I don't think muzzling speech is ever a good idea. If corruption is the issue, does anyone seriously think that stopping the legal flow of money will stop the flow of goods, services, and money for favors? All one has to do to see the folly in that idea is look at recruiting in NCAA Division I football.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Elections would have to be federally and equally funded. Hell, it would cost us all a lot less money to have a Congress that answers to the people who voted for them.
Click to expand...

So some loudmouth in the form of a Gus Hall who can't raise a dime on his own gets a taxpayer-funded soapbox? No thanks.
 
Just1Voice said:
I signed this petition yesterday. If it passes, it will be a giant step in the right direction. Our political system has been a victim of the corrupting influence of bad campaign financing policy for far too long.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it wont pass...I believe it has been tried in the past and the argument was put forth as a excuse that it takes individuals rights away to support the person of their choice...yanno the usual BS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…