PDA

View Full Version : Should Outside Campaign Funding be banned?



zeus3925
11-04-2010, 12:02 PM
This year's election has seen some incredible amounts of spending by sources outside the candidate's district. In one race in Minnesota, $15 million was spent to win a job that pays $153,000. Who is going to listen to the constituents when the return favors are called in?

Question: Should campaign funds be restricted to citizens, locals of unions, and businesses that actually headquartered in that district?

Roger Perry
11-04-2010, 12:29 PM
It was reported that Florida's new Governor Rick Scott spent $75,000,000 of his own money to get elected. His opponet Alex Sink spend almost as much of her own money trying to get elected.:shock:

Buzz
11-04-2010, 12:30 PM
I agree with Teddy Roosevelt on the business spending on elections part. This comes from his 1905 State of the Union Speech.


"All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law; directors should not be permitted to use stockholders' money for such purposes; and, moreover, a prohibition of this kind would be, as far as it went, an effective method of stopping the evils aimed at in corrupt practices acts. Not only should both the National and the several State Legislatures forbid any officer of a corporation from using the money of the corporation in or about any election, but they should also forbid such use of money in connection with any legislation save by the employment of counsel in public manner for distinctly legal services."

On hundred years after the 1907 Tillman Act, they're back with a vengeance.

BonMallari
11-04-2010, 01:43 PM
should funding be banned...in some ways yes , but then look at Meg Whitman in Cali using some reported 140 Mil of her own money...only to get beat by Gov. Moonbeam...McCain - Feingold was/is a joke, all it did was give PAC's a legal way to funnel money to a campaign...I wish all the campaigns got a certain sum of money and thats all...once its gone, no more ads, no more travel etc...makes you wonder why they spend millions on chasing a job that on the surface pays mere thousands,

dnf777
11-04-2010, 01:44 PM
Kind of defeats the entire purpose of having DISTRICTS, doesn't it? I mean, why go to the trouble of gerrymandering if the locals don't really matter anyway?

Uncle Bill
11-04-2010, 04:30 PM
should funding be banned...in some ways yes , but then look at Meg Whitman in Cali using some reported 140 Mil of her own money...only to get beat by Gov. Moonbeam...McCain - Feingold was/is a joke, all it did was give PAC's a legal way to funnel money to a campaign...I wish all the campaigns got a certain sum of money and thats all...once its gone, no more ads, no more travel etc...makes you wonder why they spend millions on chasing a job that on the surface pays mere thousands,


I believe you have the answer..."ON THE SERFACE"...being the key phrase. The job first of all has little to do with the annual salary and the perks. It's how a Democrat Congress lady can accrue millions after being in office 3 terms. It's all about power, and what and who they rub elbows with, plus the retirement pay that the taxpayers continue getting gouged for throughout that persons lifetime.

Even after they become MORE brain dead than when they first ran for office, they get re-elected on the sympathy vote, so they can run up their years-in-service, only to get a higher amount of retirement.

Term limits, removing the ability to vote in their own pay raises, a 'reasonable' retirement allowance, would all go far to eliminate the career politicians. It's unrealistic I admit, but it's the only real solution to the problem that gets increasingly worse annually.

Despite this current voting session that cleansed several problems, it has another large cleansing ahead, before this nation can get back to 'thinking' we have returned to our Constitutional base. There are plenty RINOs that need replacing, along with plenty other liberal/socialist believers that will continue to be against what this nation was founded on.

It's hard for me to see any time in my future, the USA map of counties eliminating much more 'blue' on it, unless the fault line under the west coast removes everything from San Diego to Seattle. But then, that still leaves the NE, Colorado and Minnesoooota...oh well, we can't have everything. :rolleyes:

UB

Don Horstman
11-04-2010, 05:30 PM
Buzz,

If we eliminate a company's ability to donate to candidates are we also going to stop unions, PAC's, and other organizations such as the NRA from donating to candidates they support? Without the SEIU Reid never gets past Angle, even though she may not have been the best candidate. I just can't see the pols on either side agreeing to back away from this gravy train.

Just wondering where you draw the line? I am all in favor of making changes as long as all of the special interest groups on both sides of the aisle have to play by the same rules. You also have to figure in the natural bias of the majority of the major media outlets. Most of them tend to have a more liberal bias.

There is no perfect system, but even with all of the crazy amounts of money thrown into the process, I would rather have our system than live in Iran, Cuba, Venezuela etc.

subroc
11-04-2010, 06:50 PM
not only no, but f#$k no.

How can special interest groups buy votes then?

all kidding aside, no. anyone should be able to support anyone he or she wants. The election of like minded individuals that support positions you believe in is worth donating to regardless of where they live.

BTW, how would you poloce such a restrictive policy?

BTW2, if you are so worried about outside influence, how about a nationwide, mandatory requirement to show an ID to vote?

That would be a far mor important start to honest elections.

Transparency of donations would be the second step.

Marvin S
11-04-2010, 07:22 PM
The D's have their panties in a wad because of the SCOTUS ruling which leveled the playing field :( . I had this discussion last night with a person who hangs in a different crowd. My question to him was "Do you want union money also out of the race?", naturally not :).

The D's have a message the public cannot afford, they've had the advantage in media support & unlimited take care of me groups. Hopefully the newly elected can return our country to the principles upon which it was founded :D.

paul young
11-04-2010, 07:33 PM
one Senate candidate in Ct. spent over 50 million on her campaign....

totally obscene, in my opinion. she lost anyway.-Paul

JDogger
11-04-2010, 07:41 PM
The D's have their panties in a wad because of the SCOTUS ruling which leveled the playing field :( . I had this discussion last night with a person who hangs in a different crowd. My question to him was "Do you want union money also out of the race?", naturally not :). I do.

The D's have a message the public cannot afford, they've had the advantage in media support & unlimited take care of me groups. Hopefully the newly elected can return our country to the principles upon which it was founded :D. You mean like slavery, indentured servitude, voting rights only for male land-owners, etc?

dnf777
11-04-2010, 08:21 PM
The D's have their panties in a wad because of the SCOTUS ruling which leveled the playing field :( . I had this discussion last night with a person who hangs in a different crowd. My question to him was "Do you want union money also out of the race?", naturally not :).

.

But do you really think that international corporations that have already moved jobs overseas will support issues that are favorable to YOU, or the working class Americans? ie, the majority of us?

YardleyLabs
11-04-2010, 08:42 PM
Total spending for our congressional race was about $8 million or about $37/vote cast. Total spending was probably twice that. As one who watches almost no commercal tv, I was at least spared the commercials. However, I received more than 200 telephone calls in the lead up to the election and, the day before the election more than 50 calls. I was having a technical telemeeting at one point and ended up having to disconnect the phones in that part of my house because the noise was so disruptive. Of course, that didn't help the four times people came to my door to be sure I would get out to vote. I was never so happy to see an election end. However, I would not favor restricting outside contributions. Federal elections results affect the whole country. I do oppose unrestricted, anonymous donations by corporations and organizations. I believe that threatens the foundations of democracy. I also do not believe that there is any equivalency between a corporation and a person despite the radical decision by the Supreme Court.

depittydawg
11-04-2010, 08:45 PM
I agree with Teddy Roosevelt on the business spending on elections part. This comes from his 1905 State of the Union Speech.



On hundred years after the 1907 Tillman Act, they're back with a vengeance.

Teddy Roosevelt was a Great American President. Wonder what the Republican party would do with him today...

zeus3925
11-04-2010, 08:52 PM
If that person is elected to represent me, I want the to represent me-- not someone with deep pockets from outside the district. You can change the representatives --Democrat, Republican, Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, ad nauseum. The kind of money from the outside funding these campaigns is going to shout louder than the people.

depittydawg
11-04-2010, 08:55 PM
This year's election has seen some incredible amounts of spending by sources outside the candidate's district. In one race in Minnesota, $15 million was spent to win a job that pays $153,000. Who is going to listen to the constituents when the return favors are called in?

Question: Should campaign funds be restricted to citizens, locals of unions, and businesses that actually headquartered in that district?

I believe the only answer is complete public funding for elections. The amount of money it would cost wouldn't even register on the Spending Meter. I also think the Public airways (that would be every station anywhere) should be required to provide access at no cost to candidates seeking office.

zeus3925
11-04-2010, 09:31 PM
If that person is elected to represent me, I want the to represent me-- not someone with deep pockets from outside the district. You can change the representatives --Democrat, Republican, Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, ad nauseum to no avail. The kind of money from the outside funding these campaigns is going to shout louder than the people.

Marvin S
11-04-2010, 10:17 PM
You mean like slavery, indentured servitude, voting rights only for male land-owners, etc?

I was talking principles not "common practices", but possibly having to be a property owner to vote on those issues that cost money might not be a bad idea.

If you haven't read "A Patriots History of the United States" you might want to - long book but very informative.


But do you really think that international corporations that have already moved jobs overseas will support issues that are favorable to YOU, or the working class Americans? ie, the majority of us?

The issue here in WA is just moving jobs to other states, but here's my take on overseas jobs :o & i've had to deal with product coming from suppliers that was not up to snuff. While Boeing management was stupid to sub so much work & I think they now recognize that, the IAM has not been real smart in their striking philosophy, so some work will be offloaded to SC to handle those situations. To me, that's good management, if the worker is not dependable go somewhere where they appreciate the job. Again the playing field is leveled.

1) If the quality & the output is there & the unit cost is lower why not make the move. Much of our labor has priced themselves out of the market but now would like legalized extortion :(.
2) People in other country's need jobs too, it is not just alright for us to sell overseas without also doing some buying. A contented person is much less likely to be a suicide bomber :o .
3) If overseas products are so bad, why do American consumers not insist that "made in America" is the only acceptable label. I have always laughed at how Butte, MT, a staunch Union town can somehow manage to keep the local Wally World parking lot packed. Not so staunch when it is a pocketbook issue :).

& BTW, We are Stockholders in many of these companies you talk about. Their corporate practices are closely monitored by the stockholders, unlike most unions :o.

JDogger
11-04-2010, 11:15 PM
but possibly having to be a property owner to vote on those issues that cost money might not be a bad idea. ???
:o.

Me gold, me gold...sayeth the pirate captain. Marvin, are you one of those SCA guys that dress up and go to renaissance fairs on the weekend. Do you have an anachonistic alter-ego? "Marvin-the-seer", or "Marvin the Terrible", or mavbe "Marvin the Black" or some such?

dback
11-04-2010, 11:17 PM
While I am certain none of you progressives will recognize the hypocrisy of your current positions as opposed to two years ago when Acorn, Soros, Oprah, on & on & on & .........don't recall one of you complaining then.

But you're correct.....Tuesdays bloodletting was due to; Bush, Rove, Cheney, Big Oil, Wall Street, Major Corporations, the sea level, melting ice caps and outside money.....simply can't be that the American people disapprove of 'socialist' ideologies, mind boggling deficit spending or arrogance that out paces any previous US administration. Keep telling yourselves that and you'll be scratching your collective heads again in 2012 wondering how a bunch of rubes once more handed you your collective arses.

Marvin S
11-04-2010, 11:29 PM
While I am certain none of you progressives will recognize the hypocrisy of your current positions as opposed to two years ago when Acorn, Soros, Oprah, on & on & on & .........don't recall one of you complaining then.

But you're correct.....Tuesdays bloodletting was due to; Bush, Rove, Cheney, Big Oil, Wall Street, Major Corporations, the sea level, melting ice caps and outside money.....simply can't be that the American people disapprove of 'socialist' ideologies, mind boggling deficit spending or arrogance that out paces any previous US administration. Keep telling yourselves that and you'll be scratching your collective heads again in 2012 wondering how a bunch of rubes once more handed you your collective arses.

Awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

Hew
11-05-2010, 05:12 AM
Awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !
Indeed.....

david gibson
11-05-2010, 05:21 AM
While I am certain none of you progressives will recognize the hypocrisy of your current positions as opposed to two years ago when Acorn, Soros, Oprah, on & on & on & .........don't recall one of you complaining then.

But you're correct.....Tuesdays bloodletting was due to; Bush, Rove, Cheney, Big Oil, Wall Street, Major Corporations, the sea level, melting ice caps and outside money.....simply can't be that the American people disapprove of 'socialist' ideologies, mind boggling deficit spending or arrogance that out paces any previous US administration. Keep telling yourselves that and you'll be scratching your collective heads again in 2012 wondering how a bunch of rubes once more handed you your collective arses.

absolutely correct.

dnf777
11-05-2010, 05:37 AM
Keep telling yourselves that and you'll be scratching your collective heads again in 2012 wondering how a bunch of rubes once more handed you your collective arses.

Just like republicans did for the past 4 years? I remember hearing talk of "the demise of the republican party", and look how it turned in a bad economy. Don't you see what's happening? Never mind. I already know the answer.

Marvin:
1) If the quality & the output is there & the unit cost is lower why not make the move. Much of our labor has priced themselves out of the market but now would like legalized extortion

I understand you point, but in saying so, we must be prepared to see the standard of living for the middle class in America decline substantially, to achieve some parity with other countries. I don't think many of us are ready for that. The world is getting flatter, and those who used to ride high, aren't going to like it.

Buzz
11-05-2010, 05:56 AM
I understand you point, but in saying so, we must be prepared to see the standard of living for the middle class in America decline substantially, to achieve some parity with other countries. I don't think many of us are ready for that. The world is getting flatter, and those who used to ride high, aren't going to like it.


Many on the right seem to think it will only impact those overpaid state & municipal workers, and those damn commie unionists. When recently confronted by a voter to comment on the success of the effort to save the american auto industry, a republican candidate basically brushed it off as a bad thing because after all, those were union jobs that were saved and that the country would be better off if they were gone.

dback
11-05-2010, 10:46 AM
Don't you see what's happening? Never mind. I already know the answer.

So that was you in the Chapel on Wednesday renting your scrubs.

I share Sarges concerns and understand perfectly. Were this a recent development there would have been no hapless attempt to address the issue in 2002 (McCain/Feingold). Yardley can surely subject us to countless additional pages of Congressional tommyrot proclaiming campaign spending controls each with it's own political bent designed to aid its' author. I don't have the answers....hence no vote on my part....but....I'd bet a dollar to a donut that two old horseback ranchers could come up with an ironclad single page document, spit in their respective gloved hands and shake on it over a barbed wire fence that would warrant greater merit then anything generated by any congressman thus far.

Marvin S
11-05-2010, 06:07 PM
Just like republicans did for the past 4 years? I remember hearing talk of "the demise of the republican party", and look how it turned in a bad economy. Don't you see what's happening? Never mind. I already know the answer.

Actually Doc, I don't think you do know the answer.


Marvin:
1) If the quality & the output is there & the unit cost is lower why not make the move. Much of our labor has priced themselves out of the market but now would like legalized extortion

I understand you point, but in saying so, we must be prepared to see the standard of living for the middle class in America decline substantially, to achieve some parity with other countries. I don't think many of us are ready for that. The world is getting flatter, and those who used to ride high, aren't going to like it.

That's what people thought when Henry started paying his workers enough to buy the cars the workers were building. If your opinion is the world will get flatter if people in other countries enjoy a somewhat higher standard of living, I disagree. Were those people making more money we would have a larger market for our products, is that real hard to understand?

My son is starting a business. He makes premium dairy products: cow, goat & a blend of both in cheese + other dairy products. Not only do you have to make the product & deal with the regulators, but you have to develop a market. In order to help him I run a couple of stands in local Farmers Markets. One in a lower income area & another in a higher income area. My average sale in the higher income area is about 60% greater & I make more sales. There was such a disparity in sales that we started looking at wage demographics & will concentrate our limited work force (which is anyone in the family who will put in time for product) in the higher wage areas next year.


Many on the right seem to think it will only impact those overpaid state & municipal workers, and those damn commie unionists. When recently confronted by a voter to comment on the success of the effort to save the american auto industry, a republican candidate basically brushed it off as a bad thing because after all, those were union jobs that were saved and that the country would be better off if they were gone.

How do you know what people to the right of yourself (which would be a very large segment of the populace) think? Like children not being able to choose their parents, there is no litmus test for registering as an R to run a campaign, so we don't really know if he was a real R or not. You lefty's idea of what makes an acceptable R is fairly far out :) .

dnf777
11-05-2010, 07:29 PM
Actually Doc, I don't think you do know the answer.



That's what people thought when Henry started paying his workers enough to buy the cars the workers were building. If your opinion is the world will get flatter if people in other countries enjoy a somewhat higher standard of living, I disagree. Were those people making more money we would have a larger market for our products, is that real hard to understand?


Invoking Henry Ford?? Where do you think Henry Ford wold fall in today's political spectrum???

And BTW, what was Toyota and Honda's market share in the early 20th century? Do you really think that's a valid comparison? ;-)

Uncle Bill
11-06-2010, 03:35 PM
This year's election has seen some incredible amounts of spending by sources outside the candidate's district. In one race in Minnesota, $15 million was spent to win a job that pays $153,000. Who is going to listen to the constituents when the return favors are called in?

Question: Should campaign funds be restricted to citizens, locals of unions, and businesses that actually headquartered in that district?


Don't tell me that Michelle wouldn't have won without my measley $200?:o
Since John Thune ran unapposed, he didn't need my contribution, and I'd already sent in as much as I could for Kristi Noem. So who better to help out than Mrs. Bachman?

As for 'return favors'...her voting record will suffice just fine...unless you believe I could hold out for something more exotic?

My main concern now is if NBC will ban my viewing their programming because I didn't get their permission to contribute.:rolleyes:

UB

zeus3925
11-07-2010, 03:35 PM
Don't tell me that Michelle wouldn't have won without my measley $200?:o
Since John Thune ran unapposed, he didn't need my contribution, and I'd already sent in as much as I could for Kristi Noem. So who better to help out than Mrs. Bachman?

As for 'return favors'...her voting record will suffice just fine...unless you believe I could hold out for something more exotic?

My main concern now is if NBC will ban my viewing their programming because I didn't get their permission to contribute.:rolleyes:

UB
Bill I am not worried about your $200 dollars. But why not help those that represent you, instead of meddling in someone else's district? Michele Bachmann might agree with your politics, but it isn't her job to represent you. She represents the 6th district of Minnesota. You live in South Dakota.

PS. I bet you never listened to NBC, unless you had a barf bag handy.

BonMallari
11-07-2010, 06:57 PM
Bill I am not worried about your $200 dollars. But why not help those that represent you, instead of meddling in someone else's district? Michele Bachmann might agree with your politics, but it isn't her job to represent you. She represents the 6th district of Minnesota. You live in South Dakota.

PS. I bet you never listened to NBC, unless you had a barf bag handy.


Well with that mode of thinking where did all the national support $$$ for Harry Reid come from, Nevada isnt exactly a big populated state..Senate elections have become national because the candidates themselves along with the parties take their campaigns national...;)

zeus3925
11-07-2010, 10:27 PM
Well with that mode of thinking where did all the national support $$$ for Harry Reid come from, Nevada isnt exactly a big populated state..Senate elections have become national because the candidates themselves along with the parties take their campaigns national...;)

My point exactly. With that kind of money flooding campaigns is it any wonder the politicians no longer listen to their people?

BonMallari
11-07-2010, 10:49 PM
My point exactly. With that kind of money flooding campaigns is it any wonder the politicians no longer listen to their people?

they have prostituted themselves to special interest groups and lobbyists..the only equalizer that the public has is the power of the vote, and even that can be bought for chump change

duckheads
11-08-2010, 11:59 AM
I don't recall any of you independants questioning where Obama's donations came from. Seems to me money from outside a district is one thing but what about donations from outside the country?

dnf777
11-08-2010, 01:11 PM
I don't recall any of you independants questioning where Obama's donations came from. Seems to me money from outside a district is one thing but what about donations from outside the country?

You've heard THIS independent question that several times. I don't care WHO the candidate is, or WHAT the party is, I don't want anonymous or foreign interests funding (ie buying) our elections. That is why I favor an amendment that clearly defines a "person" as a human being, and limit corporate donations. Maybe I didn't use the exact terms you would have preferred, but I have always been against these contributions.

Buzz
11-08-2010, 01:48 PM
You've heard THIS independent question that several times. I don't care WHO the candidate is, or WHAT the party is, I don't want anonymous or foreign interests funding (ie buying) our elections. That is why I favor an amendment that clearly defines a "person" as a human being, and limit corporate donations. Maybe I didn't use the exact terms you would have preferred, but I have always been against these contributions.

I didn't know that Obama's donations came from outside the country, which I think is what he is trying to imply.

I would like to see proof that he got donations from outside our border.

road kill
11-08-2010, 02:15 PM
I didn't know that Obama's donations came from outside the country, which I think is what he is trying to imply.

I would like to see proof that he got donations from outside our border.

If it was proven to you, then what would you do??


RK

YardleyLabs
11-08-2010, 02:26 PM
If it was proven to you, then what would you do??


RK
In fact, both candidates in the last election received funds from foreign donors both directly and indirectly through PACs. Both returned those donations that were identified. One individual was arrested for illegal, foreign source donations to the Obama campaign but I do not know if he has been tried yet. Based on the United decision, it will be essentially impossible to prevent foreign funds from being used in S election campaigns since corporate donations and donations through 501 (c)(4) organizations such and Rove's Crossroads group and even the Chamber of Commerce will remain anonymous. With the mid-term elections, such anonymous donations may actually now represent the majority of all funds used in conjunction with election campaigns.

EDIT: To be clear, there is nothing illegal about donations received from non-US addresses. US citizens residing outside the US are perfectly entitled to contribute to campaigns. By virtue of its phenomenal success in raising small dollar contributions over the Internet, the Obama campaign received thousands of contributions from foreign addresses. In these, the computer system required that the donors check a box indicating that they were US citizens and enter a passport number in a box. Those numbers were not verified. Under US law, a campaign is required to exercise due diligence and then to return contributions that are determined to violate the law. An AP survey found that both campaigns took the money first and only asked questions later, if ever. In one instance, the McCain capaign returned some $50,000 that was solicited and received by a non-US citizen in Florida who had been asked to become a fund raiser by a McCain campaign staffer. A Canadian donor gave $500 to the Obama campaign, checked the citizen box and entered a passport number, but also wrote in the address space that he was not a citizen. Since donor lists and reports were automatically recorded and sent to the FEC, this record was sent as well and the money was refunded. (see, for example, http://sweetness-light.com/archive/ap-lies-both-sides-not-taking-illegal)