• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Cr0nJ0b

Cr0nJ0b

Golden Member
Just a simple question. I have my own view on this, but I was wondering what ppl on the forums thought.

The question:

How much money should a person or a corporation be allowed to spend to influence the outcome of a democratic election?

You can answer for both ppl or corporations as separate or consider them as the same.

This isn't a question about what is legal, or what the constitution says you can spend, it's just your personal view of what "should" be allowed.

My vote is for $100 US. In my mind, that's all a person should be able to spend to influence an election. what's your number?
 
Nothing, because there shouldn't be any government. Failing that, it should be left up to the States and individuals shouldn't be allowed to vote for the union.
 
Is the 100 total for all elections in that particular year?

I do, however, agree with you that it is insane to allow one person to give a billion dollars. There should be a limit and while 100 is slighly low, I could see 250.

Oh, and corporations are not people. They should only be allowed to give money if they have done no business with the government at any level.

Although, I do think that an exception should be made in that if any individual chooses not to donate that year they can allow a company they own stock in to give their individual amount as they see fit, as long as they deduct that money from dividends paid to that individual.
 
soulcougher73 said:
To influence an election? Zero

I dont care if they donate but when you use influence it sounds like buying and rigging. That im against.
Click to expand...

Well, then its a good thing the health insurance companies are giving tens of millions of dollars to the Republicans not expecting anything in return.

Damn, I laughed so hard typing that I think I hurt myself. Too bad I don't have health insurance.
 
techs said:
Well, then its a good thing the health insurance companies are giving tens of millions of dollars to the Republicans not expecting anything in return.

Damn, I laughed so hard typing that I think I hurt myself. Too bad I don't have health insurance.
Click to expand...

Im all for putting a cap on how much anyone or company can donate. Off the top of my head 5k sounds good. 😀
 
Look at the total that the government spends.
divide that by the number of citizens.
Tthat is what you are worth on an average.

If you wish to purchase your government; that is the maximum you are allowed to spend - your share.


2012 budget was roughly $4T
2010 census has us at 308M

Comes out to about $1400 / person
 
Your question is framed wrongly. The question should be: what should be done to politicians so their influence is limited from corporations and unions?
 
If I had to come up with an amount, I'd base it on median income, there's no reason the rich should be able to donate and influence politics more, and corporations should definitely not be allowed to be counted as a person, and on that note the same applies to unions, they should not be able to donate anymore than any single member.
 
EagleKeeper said:
Look at the total that the government spends.
divide that by the number of citizens.
Tthat is what you are worth on an average.

If you wish to purchase your government; that is the maximum you are allowed to spend - your share.


2012 budget was roughly $4T
2010 census has us at 308M

Comes out to about $1400 / person
Click to expand...

You missed a few zeroes...

I'd be for a ~$500 limit, but people could donate unlimited amounts of their own personal time.
 
xj0hnx said:
If I had to come up with an amount, I'd base it on median income, there's no reason the rich should be able to donate and influence politics more, and corporations should definitely not be allowed to be counted as a person, and on that note the same applies to unions, they should not be able to donate anymore than any single member.
Click to expand...

You mean except for the fact we make them pay more?
 
$0

Elections should be totally publicly funded. Any attempt to 'spend to influence' should result in immediate public execution, and the forfeiture of your total net worth.
 
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.)
 
1000 dollars is reasonable for today's world. I really thinks it's Apropriate since even a person of modest means can really commit to someone they believe in.
 
techs said:
Well, then its a good thing the health insurance companies are giving tens of millions of dollars to the Republicans not expecting anything in return.

Damn, I laughed so hard typing that I think I hurt myself. Too bad I don't have health insurance.
Click to expand...

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.
 
The problem is less the amount of money as it is this fact.

We don't know where the money is coming from. Currently it's possible to obscure the source of the money in regards to who exactly is funding the superpac that is putting out the advertising

If we could have 100% (or as close as humanly possible) accounting of who received what amount of money from whom and in what form I'd be a lot less concerned about the amount of money spent.
 
BoomerD said:
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.)
Click to expand...

I like all this, but i think id make it like $1000 max contribution per year personally.
 
hal2kilo said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think that just goes to show how much money the health insurance companies are making covering only a fraction of the population.
Scary, huh?
 
blankslate said:
The problem is less the amount of money as it is this fact.

We don't know where the money is coming from. Currently it's possible to obscure the source of the money in regards to who exactly is funding the superpac that is putting out the advertising

If we could have 100% (or as close as humanly possible) accounting of who received what amount of money from whom and in what form I'd be a lot less concerned about the amount of money spent.
Click to expand...

This is what happens when that information is used inappropriately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top