Campaign Reform - Page 6

kinggovernor · 10-18-2006, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

$1,000 because that is an amount that a lot of people can come up with and it is not significant enough to buy votes. $1,000 is all congressman osborne did when he was running for governor and he was ok. He did it on his own though so that people couldn't say Merk was buying his votes.

alot of people don't have time to protest 25 days out of the month, so should that be illegal as well?

Instead of TV ads they will just have to put things in news papers, magazines, radio, and other things. My grandpa always said tv fucked up politics anyway.

No one listens to the radio and newspaper readership is down

WickedLou9 · 10-18-2006, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

alot of people don't have time to protest 25 days out of the month, so should that be illegal as well?

No one listens to the radio and newspaper readership is down

Alot of people listen to the radio. Almost everyone in america does. It's called a commute to and from work.

imind · 10-18-2006, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

why is that?
and why should we force companies to lose money by underselling their product

Originally Posted by 7960

The commercial that comes on at 6:27:00 wouldn't get any special audience........so why do you say it would?

civic duty. i would have no problem legislating this into play. political advertising will only happen in the months preceding election time, and would be scheduled at certain times, like a political infomercial. scheduled political commercials would allow advertisers to purchase air time either before or after them. again, more than making up the difference they would lose.

understand, i'm pulling this shite off the top of my head, but something needs to change, and for many reasons. to enumerate...

1. to deny that money can influence an election for either party is to deny reality. office holders would be more indebted to the people rather than specific businesses and industries.

2. one shouldn't need a million dollars to run for office. this alone is reason enough to change the system, and is, IMO, the problem that most needs addressing.

3. it would lessen the influence of lobbyists and special interest groups. corruption has become institutionalized on both sides of the aisle, and while it wouldn't eliminate it completely, would certainly reduce it.

WickedLou9 · 10-18-2006, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

What if it was an outside country buying air time in the US to try and influence an election? With large companies today becoming increasingly multi-national, it's not that much of strange question. GM has operations all over the world. Chrysler is now partnered with a German company. Sony, Walmart, Microsoft, etc.

KatKanPlay · 10-18-2006, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by Phantom

Agreed, it costs quite a bit to run, but I see bigger problems with any proposals to limit spending. I don't mind cutting corporations out, but preventing individuals from spending their own money just seems un-american to me.

I have stated many times in this thread that I was referring to "corporate money", not individuals. It is the corporate donations that tip the hand and it is the congressional votes these contributions buy that give no consideration to what is best for the country as a whole rather what is best for profit margins of that corporation.

kinggovernor · 10-18-2006, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

outside countries are different than american companies

kinggovernor · 10-18-2006, 09:17 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Alot of people listen to the radio. Almost everyone in america does. It's called a commute to and from work.

I am sure that the air time from 7-10 am is very expensive.

I haven't listened to the radio in several years, mp3 players have made the radio obsolete

WickedLou9 · 10-19-2006, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

outside countries are different than american companies

how are they different?

And what is an "American company" ? Is Diehmler-Chrysler american? How about Microsoft, or GM? There are alot of so called "Multi-National Corporations" these days.... What about foreign companies? Would you care if Virgin Atlantic donated money to a campaign? How about Hammas? What about a 529 group that a foreign company is funding?

Where can you draw a line between what is OK and what is not?

WickedLou9 · 10-19-2006, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I am sure that the air time from 7-10 am is very expensive.

I haven't listened to the radio in several years, mp3 players have made the radio obsolete

no they havn't. People still listen to morning talk shows, news, etc.

Diesel66 · 10-19-2006, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

What if it was an outside country buying air time in the US to try and influence an election? With large companies today becoming increasingly multi-national, it's not that much of strange question. GM has operations all over the world. Chrysler is now partnered with a German company. Sony, Walmart, Microsoft, etc.

Everyone has the right to push for political action that benefits them.

The thing is if you pass these campaign finance laws, the big guys are still going to have the ability to influence election/politicans. The laws hurt the smaller groups

KatKanPlay · 10-19-2006, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

no they havn't. People still listen to morning talk shows, news, etc.

And I pay absolutely NO attention to TV ads. It would be wrong for a person to decide who they are going to vote for based on a 30 second ad.

WickedLou9 · 10-19-2006, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Everyone has the right to push for political action that benefits them.

The thing is if you pass these campaign finance laws, the big guys are still going to have the ability to influence election/politicans. The laws hurt the smaller groups

So you would have no issue with Iran funneling money to some 529 group who would run ads in the US in order to influence our elections?

Donkey® · 10-19-2006, 01:26 PM

1: Do away with corporate donations.
2: Pool ALL donations into a pot to be shared by ALL parties.
3: Give = time in debates, TV and Radio to ALL parties.

Either that or do away with political parties. I would rather vote for a man/woman and what they stand for than a party.

DosEquis · 10-19-2006, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

alot of people don't have time to protest 25 days out of the month, so should that be illegal as well?

No one listens to the radio and newspaper readership is down

That is a different argument all together. Protesting is not equal to campaign finance or donating money. They are not even close to the same thing.

Personally I could care less if they have less tv time. They will just have to be more creative in getting their message out. Besides, they did it until the 1940s and 1950s without a tv. If they could do it from 1776 to 1940 w/o a tv they can still do it. It would force them to do sponsered debates and put things in print. They could do interviews all the time on local tv stations. They have plenty of options. The only thing they wouldnt have is to return favors for large donations.

KatKanPlay · 10-19-2006, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

The only thing they wouldnt have is to return favors for large donations.

EXACTLY!!

KatKanPlay · 10-19-2006, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

1: Do away with corporate donations.
2: Pool ALL donations into a pot to be shared by ALL parties.
3: Give = time in debates, TV and Radio to ALL parties.

Either that or do away with political parties. I would rather vote for a man/woman and what they stand for than a party.

kinggovernor · 10-19-2006, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

how are they different?

And what is an "American company" ? Is Diehmler-Chrysler american? How about Microsoft, or GM? There are alot of so called "Multi-National Corporations" these days.... What about foreign companies? Would you care if Virgin Atlantic donated money to a campaign? How about Hammas? What about a 529 group that a foreign company is funding?

Where can you draw a line between what is OK and what is not?

companies that pay income tax in American

kinggovernor · 10-19-2006, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

That is a different argument all together. Protesting is not equal to campaign finance or donating money. They are not even close to the same thing.

it is all covered under free political speech

Personally I could care less if they have less tv time. They will just have to be more creative in getting their message out. Besides, they did it until the 1940s and 1950s without a tv. If they could do it from 1776 to 1940 w/o a tv they can still do it. It would force them to do sponsered debates and put things in print. They could do interviews all the time on local tv stations. They have plenty of options. The only thing they wouldnt have is to return favors for large donations.

I believe if we barred candidates from tv, which is effectively what you want to do, the amount of informed voters would go down

KatKanPlay · 10-19-2006, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

it is all covered under free political speech

I believe if we barred candidates from tv, which is effectively what you want to do, the amount of informed voters would go down

I strongly disagree!! TV adds are lame and give no real answers to the real issues. No one is suggesting barring anyone, the suggestion here is giving all a fair playing field so that the voters have better opportunity to garner information about each as opposed to who ever has the most money gets the most air time.

kinggovernor · 10-19-2006, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

I strongly disagree!! TV adds are lame and give no real answers to the real issues. No one is suggesting barring anyone, the suggestion here is giving all a fair playing field so that the voters have better opportunity to garner information about each as opposed to who ever has the most money gets the most air time.

I disagree, I don't believe in a level playing field. There are nonpartisan group (League of Women Voters) that put out cut and dry information about candidates. I don't believe that making elections fair with help the democratic process, in fact I think it will hurt it. I also think is goes against the Constitution