Is union and corporate money good for our political process?

[lotus503]

With partisan discourse the way it is today, I have yet to find anyone who thinks all of the corp and union money is good our system.

If both sides agree its not good, then why can't folks unite behind a cause to eliminate it?

Thoughts?

 

[glenn1]

With partisan discourse the way it is today, I have yet to find anyone who thinks all of the corp and union money is good our system.

If both sides agree its not good, then why can't folks unite behind a cause to eliminate it?

Thoughts?

If people stopped watching television and/or weren't so gullible to believe whatever they saw in TV ads, then money in politics would be a non-issue. But because our political fate seems to in the hands of those same people who watch Jerry Springer and The Real Housewives of Sheboygan Wisconsin, we're stuck with union and corporate money.

 

[sandorski]

Politicians make the Laws, Corps/Unions give $billions to Poiticians. Do the Math.

 

[Doppel]

People are too stupid/ignorant to ask for anything better and yes I do believe it's that simple. I don't think the average American realizes how terribly corrupt the US political system is. It's been hollowed out by lobbying and the democracy is, with each passing election, more a farce than the prior. It's why I have barely a care who wins the next presidential election, as I don't think it matters; they are the same thing and both will "lead" the country in essentially the same way. The choice people are generally presented are result in the same end. Any entity desiring to come in and inspire real change will be marginalized and destroyed by both of the ingrained parties before they gain any real traction.

 

[MovingTarget]

Money is a corrupting influence in the democratic process. Allowing corporate/union money into elections are a bad idea.

 

[lotus503]

People are too stupid/ignorant to ask for anything better and yes I do believe it's that simple. I don't think the average American realizes how terribly corrupt the US political system is. It's been hollowed out by lobbying and the democracy is, with each passing election, more a farce than the prior. It's why I have barely a care who wins the next presidential election, as I don't think it matters; they are the same thing and both will "lead" the country in essentially the same way. The choice people are generally presented are result in the same end. Any entity desiring to come in and inspire real change will be marginalized and destroyed by both of the ingrained parties before they gain any real traction.

I agree with you entirely, what do we do about it? Also do you think it's possible the partisan divide is contrived to keep us pissed at each other so we don't do anything about the corruption of our political process?

 

[dmcowen674]

Is union and corporate money good for our political process?

With partisan discourse the way it is today, I have yet to find anyone who thinks all of the corp and union money is good our system.

If both sides agree its not good, then why can't folks unite behind a cause to eliminate it?

Thoughts?

Do you not read the posts of the Great NostraDaveous?

When you get enough people negatively affected by all this they will band together and revolt against corporate money.

It's getting there and happening before your eyes.

When it hits whatever number it is to be that tipping point, look out, it will be carnage.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Hell no.

The end.

 

[blankslate]

It can be done... but it'll be a very heavy lift

movetoamend.org

We the People, Not We the Corporations

On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions.
We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.
We Move to Amend.

". . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their 'personhood' often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."
~Supreme Court Justice Stevens, January 2010​

Easily applicable to Union money in politics as well..



America needs an Amendment to the Constitution that in essence says.

"Neither corporations nor unions are people and money is not speech."


Otherwise it'll be very easy for corporations with sizable shares owned by foreigners to spend secret money in U.S. Elections.
​

 

[mattpegher]

The american politician is addicted to money, they cannot survive without huge sums of it. They will kill for it, steal for it, and prostitute them selves for it. It is the most destructive addiction in the history of the world.
Every politician knows it, and they know without money they would lose their jobs, their power and their income and lifestyle in an instant. Therefore they will do nothing to interupt the flow. It is not in their best interest personally to allow for any serious reform.
Every banker, lawyer, large corporation or special interest group knows it. Their incomes would suffer if they lost control of their puppets. So they dangle the carrot and our donkeys follow.
Unfortunately, protests will do nothing.
The best I can think off is more easily accessable and published data on how each elected offical voted,

 

[cybrsage]

Ban both Union and Corp - and all the other groups - or ban none.

 

[a777pilot]

My stance on political contributions is as follows:

1. Only American citizens eligible to vote ought be allowed to make political contributions. So that would eliminate, unions, corporations, foreign nationals, special interest groups* and dead people (that's for Cook county).

2. No limits. If a person wants to give their entire fortune to a political candidate, of what business is it of others?

3. No cash and no loans.

4. Full and immediate disclosure. That means within 12 hours of giving the money, the amount, who gave it, to whom it was given and the source of that money should be in the public domain for any and all to see. That also means that even if it just one dollar it must be reported and reported in full. Any contributions that a candidate receives that does not meet these qualifications must be immediately returned and if the money can't be returned it must be turned over to the local, state or federal government, depending on what office the candidate is running for.

That's my idea of campaign finance reform.


*Special Interest groups would include the NRA. They should not be able to give money to any candidate or political party because the NRA has no vote. If the NRA, under my plan, wanted to take a position on an issue, then they would have every right to make their own political ads and air them as they see fit. Just so long as there was no coordination with any party organization or candidate.

The same would hold true for unions. Or churches. Or any organization.

 

[sandorski]

My stance on political contributions is as follows:

1. Only American citizens eligible to vote ought be allowed to make political contributions. So that would eliminate, unions, corporations, foreign nationals, special interest groups* and dead people (that's for Cook county).

2. No limits. If a person wants to give their entire fortune to a political candidate, of what business is it of others?

3. No cash and no loans.

4. Full and immediate disclosure. That means within 12 hours of giving the money, the amount, who gave it, to whom it was given and the source of that money should be in the public domain for any and all to see. That also means that even if it just one dollar it must be reported and reported in full. Any contributions that a candidate receives that does not meet these qualifications must be immediately returned and if the money can't be returned it must be turned over to the local, state or federal government, depending on what office the candidate is running for.

That's my idea of campaign finance reform.


*Special Interest groups would include the NRA. They should not be able to give money to any candidate or political party because the NRA has no vote. If the NRA, under my plan, wanted to take a position on an issue, then they would have every right to make their own political ads and air them as they see fit. Just so long as there was no coordination with any party organization or candidate.

The same would hold true for unions. Or churches. Or any organization.

#2 is no good. It merely maintains the corruption.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

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.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

My stance on political contributions is as follows:

1. Only American citizens eligible to vote ought be allowed to make political contributions. So that would eliminate, unions, corporations, foreign nationals, special interest groups* and dead people (that's for Cook county).

2. No limits. If a person wants to give their entire fortune to a political candidate, of what business is it of others?

3. No cash and no loans.

4. Full and immediate disclosure. That means within 12 hours of giving the money, the amount, who gave it, to whom it was given and the source of that money should be in the public domain for any and all to see. That also means that even if it just one dollar it must be reported and reported in full. Any contributions that a candidate receives that does not meet these qualifications must be immediately returned and if the money can't be returned it must be turned over to the local, state or federal government, depending on what office the candidate is running for.

That's my idea of campaign finance reform.


*Special Interest groups would include the NRA. They should not be able to give money to any candidate or political party because the NRA has no vote. If the NRA, under my plan, wanted to take a position on an issue, then they would have every right to make their own political ads and air them as they see fit. Just so long as there was no coordination with any party organization or candidate.

The same would hold true for unions. Or churches. Or any organization.

Those are pretty close to the rules in place now. The Citizens United decision was about independent organizations, not contributions directly to candidates but no one seems to understand this. I always ask people who complain about Citizens United if they think me and my friends should be able to put our money together and run adds about an environmental issue during election season. People who don't agree with the idea that money = speech seem to change their minds when it's an issue they care about.

 

[lopri]

With partisan discourse the way it is today, I have yet to find anyone who thinks all of the corp and union money is good our system.

If both sides agree its not good, then why can't folks unite behind a cause to eliminate it?

Thoughts?

It's too late. Justice Kennedy wrote 21st Century version of the 1st Amendment. I am talking about Citizens United, of course. The decision is beautifully written, albeit oblivious to its own false premises, and it is the law of the land. Both Kennedy's majority opinion and Stevens' dissent were worthy of reading even for lay person like me, and you get to learn two competing visions of the freedom of speech. (Kennedy's idealism speaks for liberty and Stevens' realism speaks for equality)

Kennedy's soaring rhetoric did not withstand the weight of the real world too long and there have already been many cracks to the doctrinal underpinnings of Citizens United since it's decided. The court will eventually have to confront the reality and find a compromise.

 

[lopri]

Edit: nm

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

My stance on political contributions is as follows:

1. Only American citizens eligible to vote ought be allowed to make political contributions. So that would eliminate, unions, corporations, foreign nationals, special interest groups* and dead people (that's for Cook county).

Not useful. What's to stop a corporation from transferring a yearly 'allowance' to individuals in that company for expenses specifically earmarked towards political spending? It just means there's a middle-man.

2. No limits. If a person wants to give their entire fortune to a political candidate, of what business is it of others?

This is just as unfair as allowing corporations and unions to pay 'donations'. The principle behind a democracy is that everyone's vote is equal, and money is a great inequalizer.

3. No cash and no loans.

Don't understand how this makes a difference, sorry? Someone will have to explain how this will change things.

4. Full and immediate disclosure. That means within 12 hours of giving the money, the amount, who gave it, to whom it was given and the source of that money should be in the public domain for any and all to see. That also means that even if it just one dollar it must be reported and reported in full. Any contributions that a candidate receives that does not meet these qualifications must be immediately returned and if the money can't be returned it must be turned over to the local, state or federal government, depending on what office the candidate is running for.

This is a good idea, though in the case of microdonations it would be a bit impractical. Imagine sorting through a list of around a million people.

 

[a777pilot]

#2 is no good. It merely maintains the corruption.

I thought there was this little thing called freedom of speech.

If you don't like my idea, then suggest a limit.

 

[a777pilot]

Quote:
Originally Posted by a777pilot
My stance on political contributions is as follows:

1. Only American citizens eligible to vote ought be allowed to make political contributions. So that would eliminate, unions, corporations, foreign nationals, special interest groups* and dead people (that's for Cook county).

Not useful. What's to stop a corporation from transferring a yearly 'allowance' to individuals in that company for expenses specifically earmarked towards political spending? It just means there's a middle-man.

Did you miss this? .....

4. Full and immediate disclosure. That means within 12 hours of giving the money, the amount, who gave it, to whom it was given and the source of that money should be in the public domain for any and all to see.

Quote:
2. No limits. If a person wants to give their entire fortune to a political candidate, of what business is it of others?
This is just as unfair as allowing corporations and unions to pay 'donations'. The principle behind a democracy is that everyone's vote is equal, and money is a great inequalizer.

Did you miss this? ....

1. Only American citizens eligible to vote ought be allowed to make political contributions. So that would eliminate, unions, corporations, foreign nationals, special interest groups* and dead people (that's for Cook county).

Quote:
3. No cash and no loans.
Don't understand how this makes a difference, sorry? Someone will have to explain how this will change things.

Cash is too easy to hide and a loan is a way of front loading campaign money and then not have to pay it back till after the election.

Quote:
4. Full and immediate disclosure. That means within 12 hours of giving the money, the amount, who gave it, to whom it was given and the source of that money should be in the public domain for any and all to see. That also means that even if it just one dollar it must be reported and reported in full. Any contributions that a candidate receives that does not meet these qualifications must be immediately returned and if the money can't be returned it must be turned over to the local, state or federal government, depending on what office the candidate is running for.
This is a good idea, though in the case of microdonations it would be a bit impractical. Imagine sorting through a list of around a million people.

I agree, it is a good idea. If it puts a burden on those doing the checking and those that are receiving the small donations.....I don't care.

The reason for this is, as it stand on, the law says that only donations of $200 or more have to be fully reported. What's to stop a rich American donor of a foreign entity from donating $100 million to a candidate by making hundreds of thousands of donations under $200. It's just a matter of hiring a bunch of people to sit at a computer and make donation for a few days.

 

[cybrsage]

I think a good first step is to prevent non-profits from funding political things...do not want to pay taxes, then you also do not get to engage in politics. We already do this for churches, why do all the others get to a free pass?

 

[piasabird]

The politicians are not going to outlaw their main source of funds??? What incentive do they have to do that?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Did you miss this? .....

4. Full and immediate disclosure. That means within 12 hours of giving the money, the amount, who gave it, to whom it was given and the source of that money should be in the public domain for any and all to see.

Wouldn't work either. It's not a crime to pay your employees more money, and that's what would happen.

Did you miss this? ....

Are you saying that corporations and unions have agendas, but not the individuals leading them?

Cash is too easy to hide and a loan is a way of front loading campaign money and then not have to pay it back till after the election.

Don't you guys have to report your campaign spending?

I agree, it is a good idea. If it puts a burden on those doing the checking and those that are receiving the small donations.....I don't care.

The reason for this is, as it stand on, the law says that only donations of $200 or more have to be fully reported. What's to stop a rich American donor of a foreign entity from donating $100 million to a candidate by making hundreds of thousands of donations under $200. It's just a matter of hiring a bunch of people to sit at a computer and make donation for a few days.

Wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose? The idea is that middle-class people are more likely to make small donations, right? So this just biases the whole thing against the party representing the poorer demographic. Not really very fair.

 

[sandorski]

I thought there was this little thing called freedom of speech.

If you don't like my idea, then suggest a limit.

You can Talk, Write Books/Letters/Papers, carry a Picket Sign all you want. Just don't equate Cash as Free Speech, it isn't.

 

[nyker96]

I personally don't like this contest of money. I would feel a lot better that if every candidate get a fixed amount of money to spent on campaigns, so the outcome is determined by each's political appeal instead of outside money. Seeing how some massive spending in some state elections can tip the election result, I think this isn't a good trend. In other words, the better candidate might not emerge in a race this way.