One thing that really peeves me is the fact that both the Democratic and Republican (especially the Republican party) recieve so much money from corporations (on top of the public donations) for thier politician's campaigns. One thing that really doesn't peeve me is how the Green Party doesn't accept corporate donations! ARRGGHHHH! I'm don't follow any party but I really do applaud the Green Party on that issue.

So, should corporate donations be halted and replaced with public and individual donations?

i think that should be canned along with that electoral system, more or less i dont want a president that runs for microsoft, target and the state of florida running the nation, rather someone who repersents the nation. Just my 2 cents

Maybe if they stopped getting corporate sponsorship they wouldn't be able to produce so many antagonistic TV commercials? They might actually have to go out and talk to the people more and then... maybe... more people might get involved in politics? Maybe people would take more time to learn about the issues and "stuff"? Maybe not.

Yes, corporate sponsorship should stop... but what are ya gunna do about it?

O.

I think political advertising should be banned, period.

I second Rattlesnake's comment.

For government to be truly responsive to the needs of its citizens, then its citizens should have the same amount of influence as the corporations do.

I wish I knew how this could be done without enacting sweeping legislation that would have to be passed by the people who are already "beholden to" these organizations for their positions in Congress.

And the "Do you want to donate to the political candidates?" check box on the income tax form is like adding insult to injury proportionate to the size of the check you're writing to Uncle Sam at the time.

Oh, but it's not the corporations that are a problem, but just regular joes, too. Well, sort of.


You see, rich people have a lot of rich friends. Now, under that so-called "campaign-finance reform" bill, they upped the amount of "hard money" you can give to a political candidate. They raised it from $1,000 to $2,000. So, all these rich people will go to a political dinner hosted by a candidate. They'll charge $2,000, because that's the most they can.

This is a system that favors the rich greatly over the poor. The rich have lots and lots of money to give away, and the poor simply don't. Maybe Joe Oibaron and Jane Corporatelawyer can afford to give away $2,000 of disposable income and still be able live the same way they did before, but none of my friends can. In fact, drug dealers aside, I don't even personally know anyone that can just give $2,000 to a politician because they like them without taking a serious hit. That's a lot of money.


I say we lower that number to like maybe $100, $200 at tops. That's a much more reasonable number. Then, we ban all political advertisements outside of phone calls from a real person (as opposed to a recorded message) and advertisements to come to a political rally or meeting. This forces people to actually listen to a person speak about a subject, instead of just soundbites about how the other guy is going to raise your taxes, conquer you and drive you before them and listen to the lamentations of the women. I also thoink the government should fund town-hall style meetings and debates about who will make a better elected offical for all federal positions.

It takes big bucks to fight the two major parties. There should be no limit on campaign contributions from individuals, unions or corporations.

I'm with Hugo. It doesn't matter.

As long as, when corps GIVE money to candidates, there is no political expectation of the candidate. You shouldn't be able to buy a president, or bribe him/her into doing something that will benefit your corp.

--cheers

Thats the coporate problem. If they wish to give money its fine by me. Isnt that why the green party never winds, because msot of the time they dont have money. If the coporations want let them donate the money!

That would be ideal, but unfortunately it isn't true in practice. Companies that donate DO have political expectations in return for their money, because they don't have any other way of expressing a political view. (Which is one of the reason I wonder if they should have votes - and posted a new thread to that effect.)

And presumably you find the tax changes, oil policy changes, and so on of the Bush administration, that have disproportionately benefited his campaign backers, reprehensible?

Isn't there a subtle difference between giving a candidate money because you agree with him on issue X and BRIBING said official to change his opinion on Issue X to coincide with your own?

They are NOT the same thing. Coroporations have interests just as ordinary citizens do. The use of corporate funds to further corporate goals is appropriate.

The only way that I see to stop those with deep pockets from having too much influence is to stop all contributions. However it does cost money to run for office, regardless of how small and modest your campaign is going to be. I don't know how go get around that problem of having to pay for the campaign without having to ask for donations.





Isn't that saying that corporate interests take precedent over individual interests? Money talks. Money makes influence. Both the giver and receiver of large campaign donations know this. When the election is over, the politician is going to remember the corp that wrote a large check far more than he will remember the $20 you or I sent in.

Ahh, but the point here is that corporations often donate to BOTH sides. They want to make sure that no matter which candidate is elected, that their views are taken into consideration.

Corporate donations simply raise the overall pool of campaign money. This has the effect of lending more credence to a pro-business political philosophy. That is not necessarily entirely bad, since businesses are the ones who employ people.

If you take this money out of politics, I think you shift the balance in elections back to well-to-do millionaire types. Steve Forbes and Bill Gates-types would win every election .

This is supposed to back up you position!?!

You honestly think that it's a good thing that no matter who we elect they're going to be beholden to corporations who funded their campaign? These companies are giving bullions upon billions of dollars to politicians, and that's called bribery. Why should that be allowed?




Since they employ people, that gives them the sole right to determine government policy?




As I said before:

Our system of government is suppose to be of the people, for the people, and by the people. Eliminating corporate contributions will not hinder these goals and will enhance them. Putting a ceiling on how much a single individual may contribute, as Rattlesnake has proposed, will be an excellent way to promote equal representation. Campaign contributions are indeed undue influence and result in legislation which rewards special interest groups such as corporations.

I can not see where such a ceiling will cripple political funding to a degree where candidates can no longer communicate their stances to their constituents. I expect eliminating corporate contributions will level the playing field for those not in the two major political parties. The two major parties act coercively. Major corporations contribute as they know to do otherwise could result in repercussions in the business world.

The original question dealt with eliminating corporate contributions. I would go further and limit campaign contributions to only individuals.

That would be a start, but it still doesn't prevent the rich from having more influence. Unless there is a way so assure that each candidate has an equal amount to work with, say from some sort of community campaign fund, I don't see any way to prevent those with deeper pockets from buying influence. If there was a way to say to each candidate "OK, here is your X dollar campaign fund, use it however you wish but do not spend a dollar more than this" I'd be all for it.