• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Should the ability to donate to campaigns be restricted to people one can vote for?

Should it be legal to donate to someone whom you can't vote for?

  • yes

    Votes: 8 27.6%

  • no

    Votes: 8 27.6%

  • publicly fund elections

    Votes: 10 34.5%

  • not sure

    Votes: 3 10.3%
  • Total voters
    29
Bullseye said:
No, not really. Most are special interest driven or shills for political parties or uber-rich donors.
Click to expand...
Yes really. They still represent Citizens.
 
vegas giants said:
Its a simple question.


What if your company does not grant you the right to donate to a campaign? LOL
Click to expand...
As I stated; What a stupid reply. That isn't going to change.

You do not understand why you are wrong in the other thread so are bringing your absurdity into this one with a different issue.
 
Excon said:
Yes really. They still represent Citizens.
Click to expand...
No, mostly the represent ideologies. They don't give a crap about local people or their concerns.
 
Carjosse said:
Campaign donations should be heavily restricted to individuals only and have a very low maximum donation.
Click to expand...

what part of the constitution properly gives the federal government such power?
 
Excon said:
As I stated; What a stupid reply. That isn't going to change.

You do not understand why you are wrong in the other thread so are bringing your absurdity into this one with a different issue.
Click to expand...

Its a simple question.


What if your company does not grant you the right to donate to a campaign? LOL


Can you answer it directly please?
 
Carjosse said:
I see it as a reasonable limit upon freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

the government cannot do something you find "reasonable" unless it was delegated such a power.
 
TurtleDude said:
the government cannot do something you find "reasonable" unless it was delegated such a power.
Click to expand...

If free speech can be limited for people's safety, it can be limited to preserve democracy. If not, the constitution should be changed.
 
Carjosse said:
If free speech can be limited for people's safety, it can be limited to preserve democracy. If not, the constitution should be changed.
Click to expand...

in other words you don't understand our constitution and you assume facts you cannot prove. We don't have democracy here-thank God.
 
I recommend looking for the cause of any problem, instead of finding a band-aid for some symptom.
 
TurtleDude said:
in other words you don't understand our constitution and you assume facts you cannot prove. We don't have democracy here-thank God.
Click to expand...

So you have no problem with corporations and other organizations having unlimited power to influence government instead of the American people? America is a democracy whether you like it or not and allowing donations as they currently is a perversion of American democratic institutions and values.
 
Carjosse said:
If free speech can be limited for people's safety, it can be limited to preserve democracy. If not, the constitution should be changed.
Click to expand...

Personally, my one caveat to rights is when and where it intersects with the rights of other people. One of the few caveats I have to the freedom of speech is not being allowed to scream, 'FIRE!' in a crowded movie theater. You're encroaching on other people's right to . . . well, not be trampled underfoot. 'Preserving democracy' is a rather subjective and loaded phrase. I have no idea what you would consider to be 'preserving democracy'.
 
DH Kirkwood said:
Personally, my one caveat to rights is when and where it intersects with the rights of other people. One of the few caveats I have to the freedom of speech is not being allowed to scream, 'FIRE!' in a crowded movie theater. You're encroaching on other people's right to . . . well, not be trampled underfoot. 'Preserving democracy' is a rather subjective and loaded phrase. I have no idea what you would consider to be 'preserving democracy'.
Click to expand...

Ensuring that democracy represents the people of a nation not the corporations, unions, interest groups, etc.
 
Carjosse said:
So you have no problem with corporations and other organizations having unlimited power to influence government instead of the American people? America is a democracy whether you like it or not and allowing donations as they currently is a perversion of American democratic institutions and values.
Click to expand...

more assuming facts you cannot prove. I think anyone or any group based in the USA should be able to spend as much as they want on any candidate they choose as long as the public knows who gives what to who.
 
TurtleDude said:
more assuming facts you cannot prove. I think anyone or any group based in the USA should be able to spend as much as they want on any candidate they choose as long as the public knows who gives what to who.
Click to expand...

All you have to do is look up the list of donors for any politician in the nations and see the results. It is legalized bribery. If a company gave money to any other organization, individual, or business like they give to politicians it would be considered bribery. No matter what it is removing power from the American citizens these people are supposed to represent? Why not just add seats in Congress for corporations, unions, and interest groups if you feel that they deserve power over American citizens.
 
Carjosse said:
All you have to do is look up the list of donors for any politician in the nations and see the results. It is legalized bribery. If a company gave money to any other organization, individual, or business like they give to politicians it would be considered bribery. No matter what it is removing power from the American citizens these people are supposed to represent? Why not just add seats in Congress for corporations, unions, and interest groups if you feel that they deserve power over American citizens.
Click to expand...

how is it bribery? are you saying a pro gun candidate would not be pro gun but for NRA contributions?

what I don't like is MSM supporting the socialist left while we on the right are limited in what we can contribute to those who oppose what MSNBC and CBS and ABC wants
 
TurtleDude said:
how is it bribery? are you saying a pro gun candidate would not be pro gun but for NRA contributions?

what I don't like is MSM supporting the socialist left while we on the right are limited in what we can contribute to those who oppose what MSNBC and CBS and ABC wants
Click to expand...

Those NRA contributions buy specific legislation or opposition without that NRA money there would probably be a lot more anti-gun Republicans and probably pro-gun Democrats. Take the example of regulation of vitamin supplements, the main opposition comes from two senators who receive the most from vitamin supplement manufactures, coincidence, I think not. Another example, congress members usually start opposing net neutrality if they have received funds from ISPs. Copyright law and donations from media companies. There are many examples, just follow the money, look up a list of a politician's donors and you will find they always vote or propose legislation benefiting that donor even if they seem to know nothing about the topic or inconsistent with their other views.
 
Last edited:
Carjosse said:
Ensuring that democracy represents the people of a nation not the corporations, unions, interest groups, etc.
Click to expand...

It seems that you and I don't disagree, however, 'preserving democracy' could easily be used as an excuse to bolster super-delagates and rig primaries, all in the name of keeping us from re-electing Donald Trump, regardless of how badly establishment Dems tend to poll against Trump in comparison to the Bernie-style newcomers. You can take a phrase like that, and just stick it on whatever agenda.
 
DH Kirkwood said:
It seems that you and I don't disagree, however, 'preserving democracy' could easily be used as an excuse to bolster super-delagates and rig primaries, all in the name of keeping us from re-electing Donald Trump, regardless of how badly establishment Dems tend to poll against Trump in comparison to the Bernie-style newcomers. You can take a phrase like that, and just stick it on whatever agenda.
Click to expand...

I think your whole primary system should be just be thrown out and solely governed by the parties. Other Western countries regulate political donations and do not see these effects.
 
Carjosse said:
Those NRA contributions buy specific legislation or opposition without that NRA money there would probably be a lot more anti-gun Republicans and probably pro-gun Democrats. Take the example of regulation of vitamin supplements, the main opposition comes from two senators who receive the most from vitamin supplement manufactures, coincidence, I think not. Another example, congress members usually start opposing net neutrality if they have received funds from ISPs. Copyright law and donations from media companies. There are many examples, just follow the money, look up a list of a politician's donors and you will find they always vote or propose legislation benefiting that donor even if they seem to know nothing about the topic or inconsistent with their other views.
Click to expand...

you're just making stuff up now
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom