Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Ban all but private donations to candidates

Posted 2 years ago on Oct. 7, 2011, 7:50 p.m. EST by schnitzlefritz (225)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

We need to take all of the big money out of politics. That means corporate, special interest PAC and union money. Only private individual citizens should be allowed to contribute to a candidate. That way the elected officials will be accountable only to their constituents who placed them into office.

33 Comments

33 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by Madhusudana (90) 2 years ago

Having "big" money in politics isn't the issue, having "money" in politics is.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

some private individual have millions

I have $800

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

some private individual have millions

I have $800

[-] 1 points by achana (43) 2 years ago

You are fighting a Supreme Court Ruling.

Part of the Bush legacy is a right-wing Supreme Court and it overturned the ban on unlimited spending by corporations to buy campaign ads and air-time to support or oppose candidates.

Strongly disagreeing, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissent, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."

[-] 1 points by schnitzlefritz (225) 2 years ago

I'm OK with that ruling since removing corporate money would have left the labor unions and people like Soros to spend unlimited cash for their side. We need balance and that ruling maintained the balance.

[-] 1 points by achana (43) 2 years ago

You misunderstood the intent of the original ban. The ban was on both corporations and unions whilst removing it allowed both corporations and unions to buy air time for their candidate.

[-] 1 points by schnitzlefritz (225) 2 years ago

I could be wrong, but I understood the case and the ruling to apply only to the ban on corporate spending, not unions.

[-] 1 points by achana (43) 2 years ago

Ban was on both corporate entity and unincorporated entities using CORPORATE or UNION general treasury funds...

Although Hillary Clinton was the ostensible target, Obama said: “...a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

Thoroughly insidious but well played by the Republicans.

Links here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

[-] 1 points by achana (43) 2 years ago

Better still, set up an Election Campaign Fund

[-] 1 points by schnitzlefritz (225) 2 years ago

Sure, I could go for that as well. Perhaps a bit of both.

[-] 1 points by Warmblood (6) 2 years ago

Totally agree! I think there should be a ban on corporate giving. If an individual wants to give to a campaign, then they should be free to do so, but there should be a limit of (pick a number) and it MUST be given by the individula, not in a corporate OR union name. Period. The government could make a law that the media must give so many hours media time (on a rotating basis) for the candidates debates. That would solve the problem of campaign cash. These politicians can raise all the cash they want right now and if they lose the election, they get to keep all the money they've raised and don't have to pay taxes on it!!!! Outrageous!!!

[-] 1 points by Warmblood (6) 2 years ago

Totally agree! I think there should be a ban on corporate giving. If an individual wants to give to a campaign, then they should be free to do so, but there should be a limit of (pick a number) and it MUST be given by the individula, not in a corporate OR union name. Period. The government could make a law that the media must give so many hours media time (on a rotating basis) for the candidates debates. That would solve the problem of campaign cash. These politicians can raise all the cash they want right now and if they lose the election, they get to keep all the money they've raised and don't have to pay taxes on it!!!! Outrageous!!!

[-] 1 points by Rob (881) 2 years ago

So illionaires can still give? Good plan, well thought out, just like this protest/gathering/festival urban camp out.

[-] 2 points by schnitzlefritz (225) 2 years ago

Think a little before you post, eh. There are currently limits on individual contributions and they can be adjusted to what ever number is equitable. illionaires cannot contribute more that anyone else and there are only a limited number of billionaires to start with.

[-] 1 points by Rob (881) 2 years ago

You want to change the law as it is so whatever stipulations that are currently in the law are null and void. Currently the law says corporations can give and this idea that was floated did not address the wealthy. Cross your I'd dot your t's, drink you milk and go to bed.

[-] 1 points by schnitzlefritz (225) 2 years ago

I see, no changes can be made to existing law to reduce the influence of money in the system. Limits can be placed on the size of individual contributions to address the influence of the wealthy. Laws are written and rewritten every day. Who says thing can change? No, you drink your milk and go to bed.

[-] 1 points by Rob (881) 2 years ago

Does that mean unions lose their influence as well, cuz you in one now. Don't forget to take your Flintstones chewable.

[-] 1 points by schnitzlefritz (225) 2 years ago

Hey dipshit, if you had any reading comprehension skills you would see that I specifically stated that "means corporate, special interest PAC and UNION money." Sheesh, they let any moron post on this site. Now, kiss momma goodnight, get a glass of water and don't wet the bed.

[-] 1 points by Rob (881) 2 years ago

Damn, I missed that line.oops. now I'm gonna kiss your mamma and abuse the hell out of her.

[-] 1 points by schnitzlefritz (225) 2 years ago

Apology accepted. Now, if you want to dig her up, have fun.

[-] 1 points by Rob (881) 2 years ago

Any port in a storm, eh?. Now, what about foreign donations?

[-] 1 points by schnitzlefritz (225) 2 years ago

That goes without saying. Also, donations from only legal US citizens. And, while I'm at it, voteing only by legal US citizens.

[-] 1 points by Rob (881) 2 years ago

You do know that the current potus received tens of millions from overseas, heck he even campaigned overseas. Do you need me to put the Barney tape in the VCR for you?

[-] 1 points by schnitzlefritz (225) 2 years ago

Hell yes I know that. He also received record donations from the very institutions that OWS is protesting and they'e be bankrolling his reelection campaign. He voted for the bailouts and pushed for the second installment to be released. He's one of the evil ones, I tell you.

Now, don't forget to watch the potty training video before you turn in for the night.

[-] 1 points by SyracuseOWSSupporter (1) from Syracuse, NY 2 years ago

Absolutely correct! I have been thinking about this same issue all evening. There is no need to put the obscene amounts of money into politicians campaigns other than to influence their behavior. This should be a core "demand". This would fundamentally change this county's political landscape for the better.

[-] 1 points by schnitzlefritz (225) 2 years ago

I also believe that all taxes should be flattened and all deductions removed. That way politicians can't buy favors via the tax system either. I also think that a case could be made for a consumption based tax so as to bring those that operate outside of the normal legal income sources (under-the-table jobs, prostitution, drug dealing, Book making, etc.) into the tax base. Then everyone will have some skin in the game.