How much should a person be able to spend to influence an election?

[CaptainGoodnight]

The ACA will give the health insurance companies a huge windfall. I don't get why they are fighting it.

I'm still for the ACA in principle, only it should have been single payer Medicare E (everyone) plan.

Since when are the insurance companies fighting the ACA?

edit: going to repost what I wrote in another thread:

The problem is not that special interests are buying congressmen. The problem is that congressmen have power to sell to them. As long as they have the power, they will be able to demand a price.

Now you can disagree on how to fix that problem, but at least acknowledge that it is an immutable law of politics.

Money is not the root of the problem, just a symptom. My wife use to be a lobbyist, and I can assure you there is a lot of collusion going on without any money exchanging hands.

Here is an example: Way before the actual breakup of the telephone company, the government did try to bring up an anti-trust suit. In exchange to (temporary) keep their monopoly the telephone company agree to bring telephone access to poor and rural communities. Both sides got something, and it temporary kept the government away.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yeah its worked out great so far

I don't recall this being a problem for liberals when Obama was outspending McCain 3:1 and then 5:1 in the 2 months prior to the 2008 election. What gives?

 

[QuantumPion]

The problem isn't that special interests give money to congress. The problem is that congress has the power to give special interests favors in the first place.

should make this my sig it comes up so frequently...

 

[soulcougher73]

I don't recall this being a problem for liberals when Obama was outspending McCain 3:1 and then 5:1 in the 2 months prior to the 2008 election. What gives?

What gives is exactly the thing you want to keep going. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[xj0hnx]

Nobody should be told how and where to spend THEIR money, there should be no limits on how much they can contribute.

Problem with that is that "their money" is influencing all of our lives. I see it as an extension of "your freedom to swing your fist ends at the end of my nose".

 

[techs]

Nobody should be told how and where to spend THEIR money, there should be no limits on how much they can contribute.

This. It's called "freedom".

And what if the rich person buys up all the tv time, the newspaper and radio advertising time? Is that ok?
Or what if the rich person buys all the land around a voting place, and only allows members of his political party to park there on election day?

Or what if a factory owner says he will only hire members of his political party?

Is that 'freedom'?

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

And what if the rich person buys up all the tv time, the newspaper and radio advertising time? Is that ok?
Or what if the rich person buys all the land around a voting place, and only allows members of his political party to park there on election day?

Or what if a factory owner says he will only hire members of his political party?

Is that 'freedom'?

So by your logic:
1. Elections are won by corporations and the rich.
2. Barack Obama won the 2008 Election.
3. Therefore since he won, Obama is in the pocket of the rich and corporations.

I know that I am sounding a bit polemic, but it illustrates that elections are won by more than just money.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What gives is exactly the thing you want to keep going. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

That's my point. Thank you.

 

[soulcougher73]

That's my point. Thank you.

Sorry im not following you or we are having a disconnect.

I assume you are defending the right of people/corporations to donate THEIR money as they see fit but then rant about liberals and Obama's 2008 campaign money?

That is called hypocrisy at its finest. But maybe im reading you wrong.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Nobody should be told how and where to spend THEIR money, there should be no limits on how much they can contribute.

That's fine, I agree. You can give your money to anyone you want. There just shouldn't be ANY form of private election advertising or anything similar. If you want to give money to someone to convince them to run, or to pay for them to buy a new suit, that's on you. I just don't want them allowed to run ads, put up billboards, etc.

The limitation shouldn't be on individuals contributing to others, it should be on people attempting to 'purchase' an election through marketing.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

That's fine, I agree. You can give your money to anyone you want. There just shouldn't be ANY form of private election advertising or anything similar.

The problem with that is it's against the 1st amendment, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly said so.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Sorry im not following you or we are having a disconnect.

I assume you are defending the right of people/corporations to donate THEIR money as they see fit but then rant about liberals and Obama's 2008 campaign money?

That is called hypocrisy at its finest. But maybe im reading you wrong.

The hypocrisy door swings both ways...conservatives ranting about Obama's 2008 campaign money who are suddenly silent...as well as liberals currently ranting about Romney's 2012 campaign money who had no problems with the huge disparities in 2008.

 

[PrinceofWands]

The problem with that is it's against the 1st amendment, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly said so.

That doesn't mean they're right. The Supreme Court also gave us Plessy v. Ferguson, Citizens United, and Korematsu, among hundreds of other absolute abominations.

 

[techs]

The hypocrisy door swings both ways...conservatives ranting about Obama's 2008 campaign money who are suddenly silent...as well as liberals currently ranting about Romney's 2012 campaign money who had no problems with the huge disparities in 2008.

I ranted about both.

What so I win?

 

[Brainonska511]

That doesn't mean they're right. The Supreme Court also gave us Brown vs Board of Ed, Citizens United, and Korematsu, among hundreds of other absolute abominations.

Brown vs the Board of Education is an abomination? You think separate but equal is an okay concept?

 

[soulcougher73]

The hypocrisy door swings both ways...conservatives ranting about Obama's 2008 campaign money who are suddenly silent...as well as liberals currently ranting about Romney's 2012 campaign money who had no problems with the huge disparities in 2008.

Yes it does swing both ways. I have not seen anyone complain yet about Romney's campaign money. If they have i must have missed it. I personally assumed he would get lots of campaign money since he is rich and loves big business.

I prefer to get money out of it as PrinceofWands mentioned or severly limit it as Boomer has said.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Brown vs the Board of Education is an abomination? You think separate but equal is an okay concept?

DOH!!! My bad, got in a hurry. I meant Plessy v. Ferguson of course.

 

[Cr0nJ0b]

What gives is exactly the thing you want to keep going. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

I consider my self more on the liberal side, but I have a problem with ALL money influencing elections. any side, any interest anything.

In my mind this subverts our freedom it does not strengthen it.

 

[techs]

The problem with that is it's against the 1st amendment, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly said so.

Actually campaign financing laws had been around for a hundred years until the Supreme Court overthrew them.

Just because a radical bunch of Republican appointed Supreme Court justices threw out established law of long standing, and that they did so in a manner almost unheard of by taking a case that had nothing to do with it and intentionally changing the nature of the case, doesn't make it right.

Citizens United will be the last straw. Once it becomes impossible for candidates to oppose anything the corporations or rich oppose, eventually people will just get so frustrated there will be riots in the streets.

I think within 20 years you will see this

 

[MovingTarget]

Outlaw contributions from corporations, companies, unions, from non-US citizens, outlaw PAC's, Super Pac's, and the rest.

Allow <insert arbitrary number> of donations per year from any citizen to any candidate.
(I like $100 per person per candidate)
No donations allowed to any PAC, SuperPac, or national political party....ONLY direct donations to a specific candidate.
Also, if you're a New York resident, you can only donate to candidates who represent New York. (not counting Presidential candidates)
No more trying to influence the elections in states other than your own.

Why should Utah residents be able to contribute to political campaigns in California? (looking back at the Prop 8 campaign)
(Californians should not be able to contribute to campaigns in other states either.)

I could get behind this. The whole money=speech and corporations=people falsehood has perverted our elections process. Speech should stand on the merit of the ideas it supports, not how big of a megaphone you can buy.

 

[blankslate]

This is what happens when that information is used inappropriately.

And?

When President Obama gets the money from his "Turn America into an Islamo-facist State" constituents Governor Romney can use that information to slam the President. Money is free speech why not such information?


I'd rather have the transparency than running the risk that a corporation who has a sizable portion of their stock owned by a foreign national or group might spend money in an anonymous manner to influence an American Election.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Actually campaign financing laws had been around for a hundred years until the Supreme Court overthrew them.

Just because a radical bunch of Republican appointed Supreme Court justices threw out established law of long standing, and that they did so in a manner almost unheard of by taking a case that had nothing to do with it and intentionally changing the nature of the case, doesn't make it right.

Citizens United will be the last straw. Once it becomes impossible for candidates to oppose anything the corporations or rich oppose, eventually people will just get so frustrated there will be riots in the streets.

I think within 20 years you will see this

It is not true that Citizens United overturned a century of precedent. The ban on unions and corporations making independent expenditures for or against candidates for federal office was passed in 1947 as part of the Taft-Hartley Act. Citizens United did not overturn the 1907 federal law that bans contributions to candidates from corporations.

Citizens United merely affirmed the first amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that "Congress shall make no law" meant exactly what it says. It doesn't matter if you speak anonymously, it doesn't matter if you choose to speak as a member of a neighborhood association, as a member of the ASPCA or as a shareholder in a corporation. Congress shall make no law interfering with the right to speak.

The fact that corporations are considered to be artificial persons wasn't even a consideration in the decision.

This paranoia about a particular form of business organization is at least amusing, unlike almost everything the collectivists are doing.

 

[Sonikku]

Why are you all trying to punish success? Those with the most wealth are those with the most work ethic and intelligence. They are the best candidates for choosing our leaders.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

One person, one vote.

Instead of spending $100 million on an election, how about you employ the 2000 middle class workers that could pay for?


I know, shocking concept and all....

 

[MovingTarget]

Why are you all trying to punish success? Those with the most wealth are those with the most work ethic and intelligence. They are the best candidates for choosing our leaders.

Either my sarcasm meter is completely broken, or you need to put down the Ayn Rand crack pipe. We don't want an oligarchy, but seem to be on the fast track to getting one with the limits of campaign finance being effectively eliminated.