- Joined
- Jun 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,657
- Reaction score
- 8,454
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Would you support an amendment to the United States Constitution which would bar corporations and unions from financially contributing to elections?
Why or why not?
I would absolutely support it. I think campaign money should come from US taxpayers funnelled through the Federal government. A certain amount of money allotted and, within certain guidelines, given out in percentages depending on results of primary elections.
Imagine that. Nobody can buy an election!!
McCain spent $300 million
Obama spent $600 million
My world:
McCain spends $300 million
Obama spends $300 million
'Course my world ain't ever gunna' happen...
Any organization that's subject to federal income tax should be able to donate money how they see fit.
In practice, the unions would gain an advantage, as there is a per-person donation maximum per recipient, and it might be an enforcement challenge to insure that unions didn't launder donations through individual members, which unions and ad hoc equivalents would have far more of than corporations could recruit.
So you are saying if there were no corporate taxes then you would support an amendment barring corporations from contributing money to elections?
Hummmm, never really thought about it because there's no way corporations aren't going to be taxed.
If corporations were not allowed to contribute money to politics then I would have no problem eliminating corporate taxes. As it stands, corporations are treated as individuals and given all the Constitutional protections of individuals, and so if they gave up that power, I would see no reason to tax them.
I doubt it. Unions would have to give union money to union members that they in turn would have to use specifically as a campaign donation. There is no way a union could enforce that kind of policy.
Anyways, the Tea Party proves that the interests of corporations are well protected and served in this country.
Let people donate money to a general fund that is distributed equally among the people running. But also have a cap on the general election fund and what goes over that cap goes straight into the programs that need money the most.
I agree with maggie, campaigns should be paid for by tax payer dollars so everything is equal, and there is less lobbying from business's, unions etc. I don't think it should be 300 million, but something small like 10-15 million should suffice.
Of course I disagree. Right now campaign contributions are voluntary. I certainly don't think it's one more thing the government should get to charge tax payers for and control.
Money is one of the biggest problems in politics right now, eliminating that to a big extent would greatly help our political process IMO, and would gladly support that my taxpayer dollars go to that. And really in America, 10-15 million isn't all that much.
Taxation without representation. So if corporations can't support their desired representation, then it would be unfair to tax them.If corporations were not allowed to contribute money to politics then I would have no problem eliminating corporate taxes. As it stands, corporations are treated as individuals and given all the Constitutional protections of individuals, and so if they gave up that power, I would see no reason to tax them.
Considering this thread's topic, I would like some clarification on how the corporations and unions are currently skating around the federal restriction. Do they have individuals set up committees and then they fund the committee?The law also prohibits contributions from corporations and labor unions.
Taxation without representation. So if corporations can't support their desired representation, then it would be unfair to tax them.
According to this FEC regulation, corporations and unions are currently prohibited from making political contributions: Citizens' Guide
Considering this thread's topic, I would like some clarification on how the corporations and unions are currently skating around the federal restriction. Do they have individuals set up committees and then they fund the committee?
Regardless, even if we allowed the two to make contributions, how would we decide the maximum contribution amount, like individuals have maximum contribution amounts.
And, to support representation of taxation, do we then give corporations the right to vote, and, if so, how many votes does a corporation get.
This could become involved.
Keeping this all fair would be a challenge.
Would you support an amendment to the United States Constitution which would bar corporations and unions from financially contributing to elections?
Why or why not?
Who would donate to a fund that's going to be just as evenly distributed to the guy you don't want to win?
Okay, then to be clear, what is your answer and why to the OP?PACs, soft money, independent expenditures, lobbying, issue ads, and now due to the recent Supreme Court ruling, unlimited corporate spending on elections.
Corporations already have personhood under law.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?