How to stop unlimited $ by single entities in politics?

[JEDI]

with the Citizens United case, now corporations can funnel unlimited $ to candidates.
and multi-millionaires/billionaires are forming Super-Pacs.

sure, you say that there are both Dem and Repub super-pacs.
both sides are getting about the same unlimited $.
so what's wrong with that you say?

the problem w/that is the candidate has to appease the ideologies of these people.
the old $1000 limit was great because it limited the influence of any one person/entity.

but shouldn't people w/more $ on the line have a greater say?
um no.. that's not what America was founded on.
it's 'We the People', not We the Oligarchs.


so can unlimited $ by individuals to politicians be EASILY stopped?
if so, HOW?

 

[MongGrel]

with the Citizens United case, now corporations can funnel unlimited $ to candidates.
and multi-millionaires/billionaires are forming Super-Pacs.

sure, you say that there are both Dem and Repub super-pacs.
both sides are getting about the same unlimited $.
so what's wrong with that you say?

the problem w/that is the candidate has to appease the ideologies of these people.
the old $1000 limit was great because it limited the influence of any one person/entity.

but shouldn't people w/more $ on the line have a greater say?
um no.. that's not what America was founded on.
it's 'We the People', not We the Oligarchs.


so can unlimited $ by individuals to politicians be EASILY stopped?
if so, HOW?

I doubt there is any easy way period.

 

[MajinCry]

Easy.

Tax it. And tax it hard.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

No easy way. The most promising is a state led constitutional convention, state politics hasn't been dominated by big money yet. Assuming enough states get involved congress would pass some kind of reform because a) its never been done b) if it happens once it will happen again and they do not want to lose law making powers.

 

[Greenman]

Purchasing influence started at the development of language. It can't be stopped because it's fundamental to what we are. With that said, it can and should be mitigated to the greatest extent possible.

 

[cubby1223]

with the Citizens United case, now corporations can funnel unlimited $ to candidates.
and multi-millionaires/billionaires are forming Super-Pacs.

sure, you say that there are both Dem and Repub super-pacs.
both sides are getting about the same unlimited $.
so what's wrong with that you say?

the problem w/that is the candidate has to appease the ideologies of these people.
the old $1000 limit was great because it limited the influence of any one person/entity.

but shouldn't people w/more $ on the line have a greater say?
um no.. that's not what America was founded on.
it's 'We the People', not We the Oligarchs.


so can unlimited $ by individuals to politicians be EASILY stopped?
if so, HOW?

Are you suggesting rich people had very limited influence on politicians prior to Citizens United?

 

[unokitty]

with the Citizens United case, now corporations can funnel unlimited $ to candidates.
and multi-millionaires/billionaires are forming Super-Pacs.

...so what's wrong with that you say?

...but shouldn't people w/more $ on the line have a greater say?

You have a problem with government of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%?

The same 1% fund both the Republicans and Democrats... Anyone think that the politicians are serious about ending their gravy train? Anyone seriously think that the people that donated the $1 Billion Dollars to Obama reelection campaign didn't expect anything in return?

Like the partisan fan boy's always say: "That's not illegal!"

And like Warren Buffett Observed:
"There's been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won"...

War's over pal. Now, just shut up and pay your taxes...

Uno

 

[DCal430]

Corporations giving money is no worst than unions who take their members money against their will to give to politicians.

 

[justoh]

Publicly funded elections was/is maybe a good idea, whereby any private money spent would be matched with public funds, with the idea that this would therefore discourage big spending, and also encourage more diversity, but this hasn't proven very successful in the very few places tried.

US politicians are almost always lawyers or businessmen. That's not representative.

 

[MongGrel]

And like Warren Buffett Observed:
"There's been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won"...

War's over pal. Now, just shut up and pay your taxes...

Uno

It's been going on way past 20 years...

 

[MagickMan]

Easy.

Tax it. And tax it hard.

To tax it, you have to find it. Good luck w/ that. :\

 

[Fern]

with the Citizens United case, now corporations can funnel unlimited $ to candidates.
and multi-millionaires/billionaires are forming Super-Pacs.

Citizens United changed very very little in campaign contribution rules.

Super PACs weren't created by CU; they existed long before it. (And so did 501c4 groups etc.)

the old $1000 limit was great because it limited the influence of any one person/entity.

Which $1,000 limit are you referring to?

so can unlimited $ by individuals to politicians be EASILY stopped?
if so, HOW?

It seems you're not very familiar with the campaign contribution rules or else you're a little 'loose' with your language.

Contribution to politicians are strictly limited. (Citizens United didn't change that either.) It is contributions to groups unaffiliated with politicians that have little in the way of restrictions.

Ignoring the (technical) inaccuracy of your statement, I don't think there's an easy way stop money from getting into politics. I don't care how far you back in history money and politics has always gone hand-in-hand. No one has ever been able to prevent (actually I don't think those involved want it to stop).

Removing power from politics, while not "easy", would stop it. Why contribute to a candidate or party if they're powerless to help you?

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Citizens United changed very very little in campaign contribution rules.

Super PACs weren't created by CU; they existed long before it. (And so did 501c4 groups etc.)


Which $1,000 limit are you referring to?

It seems you're not very familiar with the campaign contribution rules or else you're a little 'loose' with your language.

Contribution to politicians are strictly limited. (Citizens United didn't change that either.) It is contributions to groups unaffiliated with politicians that have little in the way of restrictions.

Ignoring the (technical) inaccuracy of your statement, I don't think there's an easy way stop money from getting into politics. I don't care how far you back in history money and politics has always gone hand-in-hand. No one has ever been able to prevent (actually I don't think those involved want it to stop).

Removing power from politics, while not "easy", would stop it. Why contribute to a candidate or party if they're powerless to help you?

Fern

Agreed, and well said. But I don't think removing power from government is practical either. The larger corporations become, the less tied they are to their communities, and thus the less constrained by the interests of those communities. If a local company wants to build a toxic waste storage facility, it is fairly constrained by the community who can send people and raise money to oppose anything not up to par. By contrast, a multinational can far outspend any particular community, swamping opposition. Only government can oppose that sort of wealth and power, and that may well be the difference between a well-built hardened toxic waste storage facility and a watershed destroyed by leaching toxic waste, with creeks reduced to the hardiest species and children poisoned by their environment.

One place where we could legitimately reduce government's power is in the tax code, where corporations routinely lobby for advantage and pay protection money to both sides of the aisle. But that would require removing the corporate tax and replacing it with a separate sales tax, and I don't see left and right agreeing on that any time soon.

 

[Jhhnn]

You have a problem with government of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%?

The same 1% fund both the Republicans and Democrats... Anyone think that the politicians are serious about ending their gravy train? Anyone seriously think that the people that donated the $1 Billion Dollars to Obama reelection campaign didn't expect anything in return?

Like the partisan fan boy's always say: "That's not illegal!"

And like Warren Buffett Observed:
"There's been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won"...

War's over pal. Now, just shut up and pay your taxes...

Uno

The poster is a nice misdirection play, I'll give it that. The Clinton Foundation doesn't spend money on politics, making that a red herring. The subject is money in politics, actual spending in support of candidates, campaigns, so-called "issue" ads & the organization to support it.

Lots of other people & organizations do, like this-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...4451a8-74b5-11e3-8b3f-b1666705ca3b_story.html

Repubs are way out front in terms of organization, have been for a long while. They're particularly good at weaseling out of taxes on political spending & at what really is money laundering, anonymizing the source. As it is, a lot of tax free money spent on politics appears to have just fallen out of the sky.

The truth is that there's no way to get money out of politics, particularly not in the wake of Citizens United. The best we can shoot for is to tax it all and be able to track every dollar back to its source, a real person or corporate entity with a BoD.

If we need to change the rules about non-profits, superpacs & the rest in such a way as to prevent anonymous donations to politically active groups, so be it.

Anybody willing to pay to play politics needs to own what they're paying for.

 

[ElFenix]

Agreed, and well said. But I don't think removing power from government is practical either. The larger corporations become, the less tied they are to their communities, and thus the less constrained by the interests of those communities. If a local company wants to build a toxic waste storage facility, it is fairly constrained by the community who can send people and raise money to oppose anything not up to par. By contrast, a multinational can far outspend any particular community, swamping opposition. Only government can oppose that sort of wealth and power, and that may well be the difference between a well-built hardened toxic waste storage facility and a watershed destroyed by leaching toxic waste, with creeks reduced to the hardiest species and children poisoned by their environment.

One place where we could legitimately reduce government's power is in the tax code, where corporations routinely lobby for advantage and pay protection money to both sides of the aisle. But that would require removing the corporate tax and replacing it with a separate sales tax, and I don't see left and right agreeing on that any time soon.

Why would you need to replace the corporate tax with sales tax?

 

[mammador]

You have a problem with government of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%?

The same 1% fund both the Republicans and Democrats... Anyone think that the politicians are serious about ending their gravy train? Anyone seriously think that the people that donated the $1 Billion Dollars to Obama reelection campaign didn't expect anything in return?

Like the partisan fan boy's always say: "That's not illegal!"

And like Warren Buffett Observed:
"There's been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won"...

War's over pal. Now, just shut up and pay your taxes...

Uno

Because Germany is planning revenge for WWII on the USA as we speak..as is Italy....saying they're allies is just for show..

 

[Jhhnn]

Citizens United changed very very little in campaign contribution rules.

Super PACs weren't created by CU; they existed long before it. (And so did 501c4 groups etc.)



Which $1,000 limit are you referring to?



It seems you're not very familiar with the campaign contribution rules or else you're a little 'loose' with your language.

Contribution to politicians are strictly limited. (Citizens United didn't change that either.) It is contributions to groups unaffiliated with politicians that have little in the way of restrictions.

Ignoring the (technical) inaccuracy of your statement, I don't think there's an easy way stop money from getting into politics. I don't care how far you back in history money and politics has always gone hand-in-hand. No one has ever been able to prevent (actually I don't think those involved want it to stop).

Removing power from politics, while not "easy", would stop it. Why contribute to a candidate or party if they're powerless to help you?

Fern

Oh, please. You dance all around what Citizens United really did. It allows unlimited spending by so called outside groups in direct support of candidates.

The official campaign & the campaign by outside groups must not be coordinated.

If you believe it actually happens that way, you're delusional, particularly in a world of right wing candidates whose persona & campaigns are built on boilerplate provided by the outside groups. The campaigns are coordinated in advance at a higher level. They don't have to talk to each other at all, just follow their instructions from the same sources.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Citizens United changed very very little in campaign contribution rules.

Super PACs weren't created by CU; they existed long before it. (And so did 501c4 groups etc.)



Which $1,000 limit are you referring to?



It seems you're not very familiar with the campaign contribution rules or else you're a little 'loose' with your language.

Contribution to politicians are strictly limited. (Citizens United didn't change that either.) It is contributions to groups unaffiliated with politicians that have little in the way of restrictions.

Ignoring the (technical) inaccuracy of your statement, I don't think there's an easy way stop money from getting into politics. I don't care how far you back in history money and politics has always gone hand-in-hand. No one has ever been able to prevent (actually I don't think those involved want it to stop).

Removing power from politics, while not "easy", would stop it. Why contribute to a candidate or party if they're powerless to help you?

Fern

While I could be wrong why does it appear that people running for President D or R seem to go off to meet big donors (err I me suck big donors off) on these weekend retreats fairly regularly since Citizens United?

 

[cubby1223]

While I could be wrong why does it appear that people running for President D or R seem to go off to meet big donors (err I me suck big donors off) on these weekend retreats fairly regularly since Citizens United?

Maybe because we have media that follows them around everywhere and can combine and spread that news instantly? The first thing to determine is whether there is an actual difference versus a perceived difference today compared to years past. And are any changes today a direct result of the Citizens United decision, or just the natural progression of campaign strategies building upon lessons learned from prior elections.