Campaign Aid Is Now Surging Into 8 Figures

[trenchfoot]

No, the only political activist group you can deduct payments to is a union. All other political activist group donations are not tax deductable.



Read more: Are Political Contributions Tax-Deductible? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_7758178_political-contributions-taxdeductible.html#ixzz1xltQ7cig


Read more: Are Union Dues Tax Deductible? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_7985207_union-dues-tax-deductible.html#ixzz1xltGai4p

Thanks!:thumbsup:

 

[PokerGuy]

I don't know. I don't like not having limits. Why is someone else's "free" speech more important than mine...because they have more money? Not sure what money and free speech have to do with each other. I shouldn't be able to buy more free speech than the next guy.

Everyone has the same free speech rights, money just gives you access to venues to broadcast that speech. Restricting how someone chooses to spend their money and and how much they want to spend is the same as restricting their free speech.

 

[PokerGuy]

they're perfectly fine letting the rich purchase lawmakers

Really, or is that just the idiotic strawman you like to use? (no need to answer by the way, we know the answer already)

 

[PokerGuy]

Money isn't speech, mainly because it makes no sense to say I have more speech than you do because I have more money.

Nobody has said that money is the same thing as speech, nice strawman. Money buys access to broadcast speech to willing listeners, and limiting how people can use their money amounts to a restriction on their free speech. No need to argue over this, the top court in the land has already ruled on it.

By allowing unlimited donations in the name of free speech, all we're really doing is making sure only the "speech" of those with the most money is really heard.

I wasn't aware anyone had a right to have their speech 'heard' by as many people as someone else. You have the right to free speech, how you choose to use it and who chooses to listen to you is a different matter entirely.

since the "left wing media" is entirely an invention of the right

Right, of course it is 🙄 Funny that lefties seem to believe there is no bias, while a majority of everyone else knows there is.

but actual elections are one of those things that should be as level of a playing field as we can possibly make it.

The utopian dream of a level playing field is just that -- a silly dream. It doesn't (and can't) resist in reality, so each side just tries to bring about restrictions that negatively impact the other side.

 

[crashtestdummy]

You guys need a yearly limit to political contributions, something like $5000 per citizen and nothing from nonbiological entities (e.g. corporate 'persons'). If one person's vote is to have as much value as another's but no more/less, then what comes before the vote should also be on an approximately equal footing between the citizens.

It used to be that way until Citizens United. You'd effectively need a constitutional amendment to overrule that decision.

The real problem lies in trying to distinguish political speech from any other kind. For example, newspapers hire editorial staff and are under no obligation to make them politically neutral. Does that constitute running a campaign?

There are really only two things that realistically can be done to reduce the influence of these outside sources: creating a system that outspends these big donors, and deliberately voting out anyone who takes corporate money. The first runs the risk of becoming overbloated silliness, and as for the second, well, no one is running to elect Buddy Roemer right now.

 

[Moonbeam]

That's what happened to the people that bought Obama's line of shit...... they got what they paid for. Hope and change and a fistful of feces.

Obama was the lesser of two evils. I didn't expect perfection, but I got a good deal. Not my fault if your conservative brain defect sees it differently. Not your fault either, really.

 

[jackstar7]

Dangit, I am still not seeing the jealousy.

 

[sm625]

There should not be a limit on contributions. If people cannot see through the money and its effects on a political process, then they deserve to get exactly what we have.

Any and all attempts to limit the bribes simply leads to more stealthy and dangerous forms of bribery... They will just form a foundation or a private company with the money, and then end up getting a government contract for even more money!

War on Campaign Contributions is just as effective as War on Drugs. But given all this Romneybama nonsense I'm not convinced the majority understands how much of a failure these Wars on Drugs/Terror/Poverty/SodaPop/Etc have been...

 

[actuarial]

Nobody has said that money is the same thing as speech, nice strawman. Money buys access to broadcast speech to willing listeners, and limiting how people can use their money amounts to a restriction on their free speech. No need to argue over this, the top court in the land has already ruled on it.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. Why would any limit on how you spend your money amount to a restriction on free speech if money is not equated with free speech?

Did the top court of the land rule against the federal contribution limits? If not, why does that restriction on how people can use their money not amount to a restriction of their free speech?

 

[Jaskalas]

Dollars are people too.

Set my dollars free!

 

[PokerGuy]

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. Why would any limit on how you spend your money amount to a restriction on free speech if money is not equated with free speech?

Money is not the same as free speech. However, restricting how you can spend your money to express your speech amounts to a restriction on your free speech.

Did the top court of the land rule against the federal contribution limits? If not, why does that restriction on how people can use their money not amount to a restriction of their free speech?

The court has previously held that "regulations of political contributions and expenditures will be upheld only if they achieve a compelling governmental interest by the least restrictive means". That's pretty much the toughest of the constitutional hurdles to pass, the same as when restricting free speech. It can be done, but there is a very high bar set for when it's appropriate to do and how it can be done without violating rights.

In citizens, the court basically said the same applies for restrictions on how corporations and unions can participate.

Also, we're not talking about donations to the candidate and their campaigns, we're talking about using your money to support a third party organization to do something. That's not the same as giving money to the candidate / campaign directly.

 

[thraashman]

Obama was the lesser of two evils. I didn't expect perfection, but I got a good deal. Not my fault if your conservative brain defect sees it differently. Not your fault either, really.

When he ran originally I would say he was a good choice, one of the best in decades in fact. Currently I'd say he's the lesser of two evils.

 

[Anarchist420]

There should not be a limit on contributions. If people cannot see through the money and its effects on a political process, then they deserve to get exactly what we have. Any and all attempts to limit the bribes simply leads to more stealthy and dangerous forms of bribery... They will just form a foundation or a private company with the money, and then end up getting a government contract for even more money!

I agree, but people like us shouldn't have to suffer from the regulations and redistribution lobbied for.🙂

 

[actuarial]

Money is not the same as free speech. However, restricting how you can spend your money to express your speech amounts to a restriction on your free speech.

That's a perfectly reasonable opinion, but I see a major disconnect with that logic and the logic you use here:

Also, we're not talking about donations to the candidate and their campaigns, we're talking about using your money to support a third party organization to do something. That's not the same as giving money to the candidate / campaign directly.

I don't see any difference in logic between these two situations at all. There still both means of expressing your opinion. The medium is certainly different, but the goal isn't, especially if the money is going to be used to do the same thing you're advocating can be done above.

In either case, money is going to a third party for the purposes of helping someone (or some party) win an election. Who that third party is (a PAC vs a candidate) should make no difference on the legitimacy of the act.

 

[xj0hnx]

Why? It's their money, let them spend it the way they want, limiting their free speech is wrong. The SCOTUS has already ruled on this issue. Restricting donations is just a ploy by the left to further enhance the role of the left wing media in shaping politics.

Oh give me a break, you know as well as I do that corporations are not "people", and being able to donate tens of millions through them is bullshit. Remember, it works BOTH ways.

 

[werepossum]

That's a perfectly reasonable opinion, but I see a major disconnect with that logic and the logic you use here:



I don't see any difference in logic between these two situations at all. There still both means of expressing your opinion. The medium is certainly different, but the goal isn't, especially if the money is going to be used to do the same thing you're advocating can be done above.

In either case, money is going to a third party for the purposes of helping someone (or some party) win an election. Who that third party is (a PAC vs a candidate) should make no difference on the legitimacy of the act.

It's very nuanced, but one is giving money to allow someone else to more effectively exercise HIS free speech and the other is giving money to an organization to more effectively exercise YOUR common free speech to further your common interests. But in the broader sense, you are correct that it's effectively the same thing in many cases. Groups like the NRA band together to advocate for advancement of an issue, but most PACs are purely to elect one person or one party over the other.

 

[PokerGuy]

I don't see any difference in logic between these two situations at all. There still both means of expressing your opinion.

This is a specific distinction the courts made. I'm assuming the logic is that in one situation you're specifically handing over money to the candidate or an organization the candidate has control over, and the candidate can do with it as they see fit. You're basically contributing to the candidate. In the other situation, you are spending your money so a third party can do something you want them to do -- it's under your control and not that of the candidate.

One could argue that in reality it's not much of a difference, but there's a very specific legal distinction.

 

[PokerGuy]

Oh give me a break, you know as well as I do that corporations are not "people", and being able to donate tens of millions through them is bullsh*t. Remember, it works BOTH ways.

I haven't seen any claim that corporations are people. They are, however, entities owned and operated by people who have chosen to pool their resources. I don't see why that should preclude them from using their money as they see fit. You're arguing with something that from a legal perspective is already a settled matter.

 

[jackstar7]

I haven't seen any claim that corporations are people. They are, however, entities owned and operated by people who have chosen to pool their resources. I don't see why that should preclude them from using their money as they see fit. You're arguing with something that from a legal perspective is already a settled matter.

So you're cool with unions, right?

 

[woolfe9999]

I haven't seen any claim that corporations are people. They are, however, entities owned and operated by people who have chosen to pool their resources. I don't see why that should preclude them from using their money as they see fit. You're arguing with something that from a legal perspective is already a settled matter.

It's only a mere "settled matter" to you because you're comfortable with it. However, I seriously doubt you are of the view that SCOTUS decisions are beyond criticism as a general matter. That would mean that whenever the SCOTUS makes a ruling, no matter how bad you think it is, that you refrain from voicing your opinion about it.

This thread is about more than just the mere legalities. Actually, what it's really about is what this change in the law has caused: a significant influx of additional money into politics, as if we didn't already have enough of it. Whatever the SCOTUS has ruled, the fact is that it has corrupted our politics even further. Those with the most money shouldn't be allowed to control the parameters of the debate. Doesn't matter whether it's the Koch brothers and Wall Street, or the unions and Soros.

I've read that opinion and it's wrong in its interpretation of past precedent. It's also dangerously naive, or purports to be, about the influence of money in our politics. It reads as apologia for corruption. And it needs to be overturned.

- wolf

 

[xj0hnx]

So you're cool with unions, right?

Exactly, it's bullshit when unions give to democrats, but ok when X oil company gives to Romney, fuck both of them. Campaign money has fucked our election, and political system to the point of being absolutely worthless.

 

[thraashman]

I haven't seen any claim that corporations are people. They are, however, entities owned and operated by people who have chosen to pool their resources. I don't see why that should preclude them from using their money as they see fit. You're arguing with something that from a legal perspective is already a settled matter.

So say if a group of workers decided to pool their resources for the purposes of using their free speech rights for negotiation and bargaining instead of spending money, you'd agree that was within their free speech rights as well. So at least one conservative on here agrees that Scott Walker has violated the First Amendment in Wisconsin.

 

[soccerballtux]

Why? It's their money, let them spend it the way they want, limiting their free speech is wrong. The SCOTUS has already ruled on this issue. Restricting donations is just a ploy by the left to further enhance the role of the left wing media in shaping politics.

hm, I never thought of it that way.

 

[actuarial]

This is a specific distinction the courts made. I'm assuming the logic is that in one situation you're specifically handing over money to the candidate or an organization the candidate has control over, and the candidate can do with it as they see fit. You're basically contributing to the candidate. In the other situation, you are spending your money so a third party can do something you want them to do -- it's under your control and not that of the candidate.

One could argue that in reality it's not much of a difference, but there's a very specific legal distinction.

So if you donate to a PAC they do specifically what you ask them to do with the money? When you donate to the NRA, do you specify exactly how you want them to spend it? In both cases you have the same basic control over how the money is used (very little, but if they use it inappropriately you'll stop giving). How silly is it that you can donate as much money to a group to further your political aims as you want, but as soon as someone working for that group is running for office then it's no longer allowed.

I understand that the court made a distinction, but I'm calling that distinction completely illogical. Every defence of the right to donate to a PAC made in this thread would equally apply to donating to a political candidate.

Either limiting donations to a political group is a restriction on free speech, or its not. The courts have basically said that you can't put limits on fruit purchases, and then turned around and let a law limit apple purchases because they're different. It's a pure dog and pony show.

 

[PokerGuy]

It's only a mere "settled matter" to you because you're comfortable with it.

No, I said it's a settled matter because it's a fact. A later ruling can always overturn current law, but as of right now the matter is settled until the court rules differently. Just because I don't like a ruling doesn't mean it's not a settled matter legally.

However, I seriously doubt you are of the view that SCOTUS decisions are beyond criticism as a general matter.

Of course not, the court can make stupid decisions. If obummer gets to replace one of the competent justices with another incompetent one, we'll have lots of those, but that's the way the system is.

Actually, what it's really about is what this change in the law has caused: a significant influx of additional money into politics, as if we didn't already have enough of it.

Is there really more money in politics, or is it just going through different channels. The amount of money raised and spent in campaigns was climbing greatly before this ruling.

Whatever the SCOTUS has ruled, the fact is that it has corrupted our politics even further.

Do you have any proof of that? I don't think it's gotten any more corrupt, it was corrupt to begin with. You can't keep money and influence out of politics, no matter what you do. I'd rather have it be out in the open rather than hidden.

Those with the most money shouldn't be allowed to control the parameters of the debate.

Great, then the media will be the one to control the debate, and we already know how they lean. No thanks. I'd rather have a free for all than have the media / celebs / elitists control the message.

And it needs to be overturned.

I see no reason why it should be, it was the right decision. You act like all of a sudden politics went from a pure endeavor to a corrupted mess with this ruling. In fact, I doubt much has changed, everything is just as corrupt before.