Campaign Reform

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

companies that pay income tax in American

So that's pretty much everyone. This isn't a world election. I don't think we should be allowing foreign entities to influence our elections. In fact, unless you can vote, I don't think that you should be able to donate to any campaign. If you can't vote, you shoudln't be able to influence those who can.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

So that's pretty much everyone. This isn't a world election. I don't think we should be allowing foreign entities to influence our elections. In fact, unless you can vote, I don't think that you should be able to donate to any campaign. If you can't vote, you shoudln't be able to influence those who can.

Convicted felons should not have free speech?

[DosEquis]

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 dont think we should bar anyone from television. Limiting the amount of donations does not ban them from tv. They will get plenty of TV time with locally televised debates and interviews on national shows like Hannity/Colmes or Hardball. We have had two gubernatorial debates on tv so far and senator hagel has been on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox being interviewed.

Nor does limiting donation restrict their speech at any time. They can talk all they want. Have town hall meetings. They can rent a VFW area for like $800 bucks. Put an ad in the paper, invite folks in and share your views. Have them ask questionts. Its not hard.

Limiting donations prevents buying votes and worthless commercials like....

Ricketts ad: Ben Nelson sucks at paying taxes
Nelson ad: Ben nelson has always paid on time per <insert record for proof>, it is pete ricketts who sucks at paying taxes....he bought his house for 1.2 million and contested the property tax evaluation was too high as it assessed at 565,000.

Those kinds of things do not create informed voters. Debates, interviews, and dry printed points of view like those you mentioned in the thread educate voters.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I dont think we should bar anyone from television. Limiting the amount of donations does not ban them from tv. They will get plenty of TV time with locally televised debates and interviews on national shows like Hannity/Colmes or Hardball. We have had two gubernatorial debates on tv so far and senator hagel has been on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox being interviewed.

Nor does limiting donation restrict their speech at any time. They can talk all they want. Have town hall meetings. They can rent a VFW area for like $800 bucks. Put an ad in the paper, invite folks in and share your views. Have them ask questionts. Its not hard.

Limiting donations prevents buying votes and worthless commercials like....

Ricketts ad: Ben Nelson sucks at paying taxes
Nelson ad: Ben nelson has always paid on time per <insert record for proof>, it is pete ricketts who sucks at paying taxes....he bought his house for 1.2 million and contested the property tax evaluation was too high as it assessed at 565,000.

Those kinds of things do not create informed voters. Debates, interviews, and dry printed points of view like those you mentioned in the thread educate voters.

it is your opinion that those commericals are worthless, but it is still free speech

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Convicted felons should not have free speech?

Thier free speech should be restricted, not revoked.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Thier free speech should be restricted, not revoked.

Maybe in the months leading up to the election, before any candidates have declared in/out, we should require convicted felons to report to a gulag so they can't communicate with any registered voters. If your goal is to keep them from influencing an election then you're going to have to keep them from talking to friends/family who can vote.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

Maybe in the months leading up to the election, before any candidates have declared in/out, we should require convicted felons to report to a gulag so they can't communicate with any registered voters. If your goal is to keep them from influencing an election then you're going to have to keep them from talking to friends/family who can vote.

That would be unreasonable. They have to draw a line somewhere and I think the line should be drawn on funding

[avsp]

The amount of money spent is huge & seems almost 'immoral' given poverty levels outside the US.

Is it not the case that many of the largest corps donate to both main parties?
If so, doesnt this indicate that there is a high level of connivance between candidates & the media, who are in effect running some form of 'protection racket'

Is there not a, (at least partial), solution to be sought in raising the level of political engagement amongst the general population?

Personally I'd favour taxing corperate donations to parties & 'interest groups' very heavily.

Dont all the political ads spoil your TV viewing?

Is party membership falling rapidly over there? It is here in the UK & its causing the issue of state funding for parties to be raised, which I'd oppose.

Also, aren't TV audiences falling coz of the net etc?
How will parties get their messages across then, assuming TV ads are so important?

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

That would be unreasonable. They have to draw a line somewhere and I think the line should be drawn on funding

Ok, it's unreasonable to ship someone to a concentration camp.

But it's not unreasonable to limit someone's freedom of speech?

[KatKanPlay]

From Public Citizen, Congress Watch at http://www.citizen.org/congress/campaign/issues/constitution/, a website worth many visits.


Odd that money is considered free speech. Every ruling has its verbal justifications—even when they must tread upon meaning and logic. For the reconstruction of the plain meaning of the Bill of Rights. Corporations simply aren’t people.

There is also a violation of the conflict of interest principle. The purpose of government is to maximize the well being of the people. Funds are donated to influence actions. To allow a group to far surpass others in the total amount of donations is to produce legislation favoring that group. Big business is buying policy, and the rewards per investment have been substantial. If this was permissible in courts, then it would be okay to give a judge who is deciding a case to accept “donations.” The legislators and president sit as judges of corporate actions, and yet it is permissible for corporations to make donations.

Votes Bought: Corporate Campaign Contributions

Will we soon see a change in the Declaration of Independance?
A government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations. Or,,,
A government of the rich by the rich for the rich?

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

it is your opinion that those commericals are worthless, but it is still free speech

It is free speech...and I would not be for the removal of free speech. If they want to put out an advertisement on their own dime, fine by me. We would still have the same issue of, only rich people can run effectively, but at least their vote isn't being purchased in the way of campaign contributions.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

Ok, it's unreasonable to ship someone to a concentration camp.

But it's not unreasonable to limit someone's freedom of speech?

under certain conditions, of course it's not unreasonable. It happens all the time.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

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?

My concerns with Iran funding a candidate isnt the issue.

Can we ban it without destroying freedoms ? No.

Originally Posted by Donkey®

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

And they would start to join together in groups to get bills passed.