Forum Post: If I have a lot of money, should I be able to use it to fund my campaign or should there be limits?
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 3, 2011, 9:54 a.m. EST by VladimirMayakovsky
(796)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I am just trying to figure out what I can do with my money. full disclaimer, I give lots of campaign contributions to those politicians that I think will help my cause. In that respect I am no different than the unions.
100% of the Koch brothers agree with Vladimir
Limit all money. Business, unions, and individual. We need to level the playing field. One person's idea or opinion or candidacy is not more important just because they have money.
Agreed, limit all money. The corruption of money in political campaigning is one of the biggest problems in our government. In addition, just as cigarette advertising was banned from TV because it was bad for our health, political ads should be banned from TV for the same reason. There should be publicly supported web hosting to allow all candidates and ballot issues to be presented and discussed.
Good call. If you haven't yet read the book Wildfire:the Legislation that Ignited the Great Recession, it's worth reading and has some good ideas regarding legislating greed.
I mean, just look at this idiot. When challenged he reverts to the look at all the money I made, do you think I don't know what I'm talking about attitude. This is the problem with the system, people who are more successful at collecting money assume that their opinions and they themselves are more valuable than the average person. To them money = success.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/02/1032569/-Peter-Schiff-Trolls-OWS-Gets-Verbally-Spanked-With-Transcript#comments
There should be no limits on what you do with your own money.
Are you speaking legally or ethically? Legally I think you can do whatever you want at this point. Ethically, there should be a law mandating full public funding of elections and an elimination of all paid lobbying. Or at the very least a limit of $100 per person in donations to any campaign and absolute ban on organized money of ALL kinds.
I don't see what the ethics problem is if I spend my own money on my own campaign.
Well, you could say ethically you would be buying an election, but since you're operating within a system that sells elections, it's kind of what you need to do to get into office. I thought you were speaking hypothetically.
I agree that I would be buying elections, just like I can buy other things with my money. I don't see the ethics problem here because anyone can buy elections in the USA. Even OWS can if they raise enough money.
the problem with money in politics is that the politician is now obligated to the donor. If you are using your own money you won't be beholden to anyone
Unions are people, together. Give to your conscience and do it freely.
That's what I do. My conscience says that if poor people in China have a shot at a better life through outsourced jobs, I should help them. What does your conscience say? Help the American middle class buy a second house instead?
??? the middle class has been destroyed.. they can't pay for any house...
??? no-one here disagree's with helping the world.. we are disagreeing with the extracting of wealth from the many to the few... world-wide ... there are 82 countries involved in this ...
The middle class can afford lots of houses. Right now home ownership is at historic highs. As for the globe, the middle class in the BRIC countries is rapidly growing. At the cost of the US middle class, yes, but overall around the globe more people are middle class today than before. Trade barriers will make the US middle class grow at the expense of the rest of the world. How is that a good thing? Wouldn't you want a larger middle class around the globe?
Really? I bought a $50,000 house, and following a shutdown of my employer am now struggling to pay mortgage/insurance/taxes. The problem with your statement is that you assume the middleclass is growing in other places, but the economic truth is that the wealth is not spreading, it is being hoarded and centralized. To create a global market, the wealth should be disbursed, but in fact, when corporations moved jobs to emerging nations, they didnt inject enough wealth into the community, but simply increased their own profits while enriching a few well placed individuals in the new seat of manufacturing. Did the price of nikes, for example, change at the store when manufacturing moved. No.
Why should the price of Nikes drop if people are willing to pay higher price?
Did people realize they were being overcharged to support unethical business, pollution, and a sweat shop? When the truth comes out people do react...several clothing lines were seriously hurt by boycotts. I still wont buy nike anything, but thats my ethics....
People do react, by rushing to WalMart to buy more. Reality is Americans can't afford to pay for American made products.
Really? My favorite drinking glasses are made righht here in the good ol USA, and they cost a buck each. In fact, i need to go buy more before the manufacturer shuts down the plant and moves to some counry that will let them pollute while paying labor 50 cents a day....
If you were a representative American, WalMart would be long out of business. Which is not the case. So my point stands.
Not really, because nearly every product you can find is now of equally low quality, so there is no longer a benefit to investing in more expensive items so a corporation can make an extra handful for of money for a shirt that will fall apart after five washings.
you do realize, i can buy all the stuff i need to build a computer from over seas, then assemble it and slap a Made in USA sticker on it?
agreed
So you agree that corporations are doing a great thing by bringing jobs to the poor around the globe?
I agreed to your question...Wouldn't you want a larger middle class around the globe? and I also partially agree to "... corporations are doing a great thing by bringing jobs to the poor around the globe..."
but not at the expense of everyone else... if the corporations were doing that as non-profit that would be real good...
but it is not their goal...or mission..to bring jobs to the poor around the globe... if it was it would be not for profit ...it is simply a result of the corporation's activity...
and they use to justify what they know is wrong
My conscience says that it starts here and then fans out. The universe expands. We don't start our journey far away.
It started here 50 years back. Now it is fanning out and people don't like it. They want USA to be 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's resource consumer. That's what the OWS guys are trying to maintain.
That's greedy. Share the wealth with the Chinese.
No one wants that despite the fact that America exploited more nations and stole more foreign resources than past imperialist nations. OWES does not want to maintain any of that. America wanted to be the last superpower. If so then pay she must. Unfortunately it is with the blood of American boys too. Not to mention civilians since 2001. Regardless I ma not sure what you say started 50 years ago but it is time to restart. RESET man. Instant karma.
what is your cause btw ?
if you have a lot of money you should do something productive with it... something you can be proud of when you die... like end poverty... fuck helping those that only serve themselves and their inner circles...
Can I help myself? I don't see anyone rich or poor helping me. Or can only the poor and the middle class help themselves.
you don't deserve help... you are not being honest
I don't need help, that much is true. As for deserve, who deserves help?
that's simple... those that need
Then I should continue to support the needy Chinese laborer who i benefiting from offshoring of jobs from the USA. You should too, do you? Or is it that only the needy in the USA is deserving of help and the needy in the third world can starve to death, no worries?
no-one here disagree's with helping the world.. we are disagreeing with the extracting of wealth from the many to the few... world-wide ... there are 82 countries involved in this ...
Then why are so many people looking for trade barriers which will hurt the new middle class in the developing countries? Tell me, are you in favor of offshoring or not? Remember that offshoring is helping a lot of poor people across the globe.
"Remember that offshoring is helping a lot of poor people." Not so much. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carol-howard-merritt/people-of-faith-rally-aga_b_http://globalvoicesonline.org/2011/11/01/south-korea-photos-of-rally-against-free-trade-agreement-with-u-s/896364.html http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/11619/
I have no problem with expansion. The problem lies in the fact that you ship jobs to these countries to pad your own pocket rather then help anyone. You stuff millions of dollars in your pocket simply because labor in those countries is cheaper. If you really cared about developing other countries, then those laborers should be paid the exact same wages and benefits that the American worker that built your company to begin with was paid.
Would you still ship jobs to those countries if it didn't benefit you in any way?
I don't see why the laborers in China should be paid the same as laborers in the USA when cost of living is far lower in China.
I wouldn't. Would you be so adamant about keeping the jobs in the USA if you were a Chinese laborer?
we are building a better system... where the world is united ...
Why would you need any trade barriers in an united world? Why not let the Chinese take the American jobs since this is an united world?
who is stopping that?.... industrial expansion is the world's greatest defense... healthy societies do not make war... America has much technology... we knowingly allowed steel production go overseas... to help the third world develop... We intended to replace our steel with injection molding (plastics)... but the extraction of capital has stopped our industrial advancement
who's in need
put on some dirty clothes... and go walk the streets among the impoverished for a whole day... your life will change for the better
Ya but even they get more than the needy in most countries
true... but needy is needy.... we can't fix that? fuck we put men on the moon.. we can't fucking help the poor?????
we do
well ... we're going to help them more
Limits, ideally somewhere around $0.
No fourth term for you, Mr. Bloomberg.
Koch brothers planning to spend $200,000,000 in the 2012 election.
Soros should do the same.
It should not happen on either side -- big money should not control speech in this country!
US should have a system like in Canada where no outside money can fund campaigns. Political campaigns in Canada are run with taxes and they have precisely defined limits. This way, each party as a fair shot and they don't get tangled up with promises made to big corporations. Business and politics should be separated like church and state. They should never mix.
What if I want to run as an independent? Can't use my own money?
No. In Canada, if you want to become an independent, you have to gather a certain number of supporters (not sure how many) then present all their signatures to the government. The government will then give you money to fund your campaign and start your party. Parties that already exist, get an amount of money depending on the number of votes they had at the last election. This means it takes some time to build your party, but it's possible. The NDP was barely existent when I was a child, and it is now one of the most important parties. At first glance, it would seem this makes it hard for newer parties, and that it would always be the same parties in office, but, in reality, the face of Canadian politics changes much more than in US where it seems only 2 parties ever have a chance. We got a lot of upsets in the last election. Anyhow, the important aspect is that parties don't need to give any "paybacks" to businesses after being elected. Another aspect is that you don't need to be rich to become the Prime Minister. A rich person like Bush would not be favored simply because he has a wealthy family.
That sounds so sensible.
Americans tend to be so terribly afraid of anything simple & sensible.
Why does Canada have 7-8% unemployment rate even with this nirvana of a political system? Why does Canada have the same income inequality as the USA? Why is per capita GDP lower in Canada compared to the USA?
And, most importantly, why is Canada merrily raping the environment in search of oil?
Every country as problems. I don't know. There are many questions we could ask. Why is Canada year after year considered one of the best places to live in? Why does Canada, a country with only 35 million, have a stronger dollar than the US dollar? Why was Greenpeace invented in Canada? Why is Canada reluctant to go to war, when its neighbors economy is based around constant wars? Why is Canada known for its peacekeeping missions when US is known for its coups-d'états? Why do all Canadians have free health care, free schooling and welfare, with a host of other social programs? Why do foreigners mostly talk nice about Canadians, but generally hate Americans?
The world is a mystery, there are many questions that are left unanswered.
But, you certainly don't have to separate business and politics if you don't want to. It was merely a suggestion.
I think anyone should be able to spend their money anyway they want. That includes campaign contributions.
That's fine. Everyone is allowed to have their own opinion, that is why you have a voting system. I was simply answering your original question. If you didn't want our opinions, why did you start a thread asking for them?
Why are you on these boards? The current system allows anyone to spend their money how they want. Why care about OWS if the system is already like you like it?
Oh, I want your opinions, but also your rationale behind such opinions. My rationale is simple - one of freedom.
My rationale builds upon yours, but adds a level of complexity since I believe one freedom can impede upon another freedom. For example, we cannot grant each other both the immutable freedom to live and the immutable freedom to kill, because if you kill me my immutable freedom to live has been impeded upon by your immutable freedom to kill. Your freedom stops where mine begins, and vice versa.
In our particular case, if you grant each individual the immutable freedom to run as an independent with the expectation of a fair chance, and the immutable freedom to use his or her money, the money of his or her friends, or that of any business, then the immutable freedom to use this money impedes upon the immutable freedom of having a fair chance.
The question thus becomes - "Is it important for us to give the freedom of a fair chance to each independent so that he is able to garner votes by his ideas and his platform, or do we prefer to give each independent the freedom to use whatever money they can find to run their campaigns."
In summary, the problem with your rationale is that it doesn't take into account that freedoms always impede upon one another, and that we need to choose which ones are more important in any given situation. My argument is that in our particular case, we should favor the freedom of fair chance so that ideas and platforms are favored over how much money an independent can gather. Politicians are there to make decisions for us, so I believe a politician with a better idea and platform is more useful than a politician with more wealth.
Let's talk about fair chance a bit more. Consider two kids who both go to public school. One kid has rich parents who provide the kid with lots of after school opportunities for learning and growth. The other kid's parents cannot afford that. Do you think the first set of parents should be prohibited from using their money to give their kid the opportunities?
It favored some businesses. Most big contracts to rebuild Iraq were a direct result of corruption between the government and big companies. A lot of Bushes friends are there right now getting very big money to make all kinds of constructions. This is all documented. I'm not talking conspiracy theory, I'm talking public documents.
There I agree. Govt contracts are a mess. I was talking about the private sector.
I just don't see how market and state can be mixed. As far as I'm concerned, they should be separated just like church and state. They don't go together because when they do, they always breed corruption.
As far as spending your money how you want, and making as much money as you can, I have no problem with that. I believe in capitalism, however, I believe that if the government becomes corrupt it impedes upon the freedoms of some Americans to be as capitalistic as they could. A really free market works well if there is no corruption at the political level. If politics are corrupt and some businesses are favored, then we are not talking about a truly free market anymore. If you want full freedom with how you use your money, then you can't have corruption.
I agree with that, but I do not think the current US situation is because the Govt favored some businesses over some others. If anything, it didn;t favor any business at all and just let a free-for-all situation get started.
"How can you get visibility to great ideas w/o money?"
I already explained earlier that you should use a model like in Canada where the money used for campaigns is given by the government. This keeps businesses and governments separated.
Don't you realize that George Bush, his father, and his brother were all elected because they have ties to oil firms and big businesses, not because of their great ideas? Father/son presidents happened twice in America. That usually never happens in democracies, only in dictatorships.
Study the prime ministers of Canada vs. the Presidents of America and you'll see how their backgrounds are entirely different. Canadian prime ministers are mostly ordinary people, while America's Presidents are people with ties to big businesses.
Another important difference is that we are not stuck in a two party system. Our politics evolve over time. New parties come on the seen, old ones die.
Look, I am all for the Govt funding elections. I am not so sure about only the Govt funding elections. I get your point that people with money and connections to raise more money can overwhelm others. But I think the freedom to spend my money in any way I want is one of the core values of freedom. I am all for backstops so that the poor candidates are not left without funding, but I just can't bring myself to accept that rich candidates can't use their money.
"Why do people vote for politicians who have the most money?"
Because they are much more visible due to heavy marketing. Money corrupts politics. You have wonderful ideas and a good platform, but no money. Then comes a big company that makes a deal with you. We'll give you millions for your campaign, but when you get elected you'll have to pass these laws A, B, and C. We'll also give you money personally. Are you in?
This is what is ruining US politics. Politicians can also make decisions for personal financial gain. The Bush family own oil businesses, it's not a surprise to see them in Iraq. It's a huge conflict of interest. A President's decision to wage war against another country should not have a direct impact on his own businesses. That's nuts!
I thought this was pretty obvious. No? Politics work for the people when no outside money is involved, hence no corruption. Then the politicians are equal and it's their ideas and platforms that count, not how much money they can gather for their campaigns by making shady deals with X number of companies. Deals that we don't profit from as a people.
How can you get visibility to great ideas w/o money?
I believe in capitalism, not communism. But, I think the politics need to be freed from money in order for them not to rot because of corruption.
As long as OWS is not a political party and nobody can vote for them, I have no problem with them raising money. My problem with OWS resides in their questionable tactics. I don't believe in mobs, anarchy, or anyone who decides to control parts of the population by force.
A ballet dancer does not control my interests as a citizen. If the ballet dancer has money to pay for the best schools, then I will see the best ballet performance. Similarly, if a person has money to pay for the best schools perhaps he will be better educated and will be able to run the country better. I have no problem with that. My problem is when a politician is elected because he had enough money to run his campaign, and not because of his ideas or platform. This leads to corruption since he must benefit the people who gave him money, and not the people who voted for him.
It depends what we want. If you believe the best President is the one with the most ties to big companies then I respect your opinion. I believe the best President is the one with the best ideas and platform. And, the reason I care for having the best President is because, unlike the ballet dancer, all his decisions will have a direct impact on my life.
Why do people vote for politicians who have the most money?
Why the red herring? The issue was about money mixed with politics. If you have money and want to spend it on after school ballet lessons for your kids go right ahead.
The OWS guys are raising money too. You cool with that? Anyway, if the fair chance doctrine is not violated in the case of ballet lessons, why is it violated in the case of politics?
My cause is to end the war, cut defense budget to bare bones, pass constitutional Amendment so that the USA can never fight outside of its borders, free education for all college kids (so no education loans), open borders (so no exploitation of poor immigrants), open trade, universal health care, and massive social safety nets. Funded by taxing the rich.
But no trade barriers or wage caps.
hmmm, ok maybe you are being honest... (doubtful but maybe) 2 things... who's going to help that cause reach success more... one politician who already owes favors... or 99% of the people ? 2nd, we can't continue to feed into a corrupt system...
I am being honest. But let me be clear. If my model is followed, American unemployment will increase not decrease. And the rich will get richer, even after higher taxes. Free trade by definition creates a lot of wealth which is skewed towards a very select group. For the record I belong to that group. I know that if there is more free trade but also more taxes, I will still come out far, far ahead, while my tax dollars will go to strengthen the social safety net so that the wealth is shared (even though the lion's share goes to me).
..............
............
..............
"....even though the lion's share goes to me...." not for long.... there is no problem with someone earning honest profit... but greed is unsustainable .. and will bring down the whole system... as happened many times throughout history
I don't break any laws so my profit is honest. If that's OK, then why is it not OK for me to earn more and more? Note that I am for higher taxes so that part of my increased income goes to support the poor and the middle class. Isn't that better?
the laws have been corrupted to to make it legal to steal...
Tell me a specific law that has been corrupted allowing me to steal. It is quite offensive otherwise.
ok... maybe not steal... but corrupted to allow a few to extract wealth from the people.... of all countries
OK, tell me of such a corrupted law that I am benefiting from.
derivatives ... PACs ... etc
I don't understand how the giant profits are at the expense of society given that society owns these companies through stock holdings.
because it's all become a casino... more profit to wait for the big roll than to invest in the economy
How am I benefiting from derivatives, Brad?
I am all for creating jobs. There are jobs right now. Apple growers in Oregon do not have enough pickers. But no one would take the job as it is back breaking work.
I have no idea ... I don't know you... all I know is that you are defending Giant profits at the expense of the society... no ? when you contribute to politicians to get your way .. (even if you have honorable goals).you are feeding the corrupt system that is decimating our society... no?
If I (within the laws) lend money to a murdering gang...am I not participating in helping them carryout their crimes?
And how am I benefiting from derivatives, PACs, etc?
also... We have much technology... and willingness and desire to work... we could put everyone unemployed back to work in little time if we had capital to work with... but those holding the capital are not interested in small honest profits... they want big profits... so sad to say.. they like us will lose all ... unless we fix it...
Vladimir, you said this;
"...I am being honest. But let me be clear. If my model is followed, American unemployment will increase not decrease. And the rich will get richer, even after higher taxes. ..."
so... it's ok that American unemployment increases ?.... American's won't stand for that... we will take our government out of the hands who are allowing this to happen....
I would disagree with many of the protesters; I actually think the Citizens United decision makes sense, and that attempts to limit money in political campaigning were always the wrong approach. Certainly now that the court has spoken, it is time to approach the problem in a different way. For example: