Election campaigns, should there be a spending cap?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by northernbaldy, Nov 1, 2012.

  1. northernbaldy macrumors 6502a

    northernbaldy

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Location:
    the north, UK
    #1
    It always amazes me just how much money is spunked away on election campaigns.

    Surly it's not democratic!

    The party with the biggest budget has an unfair advantage and is it really necessary?

    I would prefer to see a cap imposed, so all parties have a level playing field and wouldn't it be good to see how well they handle a budget before we let them loose with our tax money?




    What say yee?
     
  2. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #2
    What, you think a combined 6 billion dollars is too much to spend on a presidential campaign in America?;)

    Yes, campaign fiance reform is a big issue though a very tough one as the people giving large sums of money to influence policy and the people receiving those large sums of money don't have any interest in making it stop.
     
  3. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #3
  4. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #4
    Nice that we could so quickly turn an across the board problem into a partisan problem. If I had a cookie I'd give it to you, edk99.
     
  5. Menel macrumors 603

    Menel

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Location:
    ATL
    #5
    NO. It would be a violation if liberty. The free world was founded on the principles of private property rights.

    "The distinction is largely seen in the economists' focus on the ability of an individual or collective to control the use of the good. For example, a thief who has stolen a good would not be considered to have legal (de jure) property right to the good, but would be considered to have economic (de facto) property right to the good."

    To control what someone else does or does not do with the property(money) they have earned is immoral.
     
  6. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #6
    problem is under the current system unless you are mega rich you have very little say in what goes on. Our government is owned by the mega rich who more or less bribe the leaders with things called "campaign financing".

    It needs to be changed as it would be nice to have some real say again.
    Also these third parties super pacs need to be cracked down on. Big time for the one that claim to be "non-profit" they should have all "non-profit" status revoke and required by law to give out their donors
     
  7. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #7

    It amazes me how you follow these sites whose "stories" have long ago been debunked.

    http://www.salon.com/2012/10/11/hot_new_obama_scandal_has_already_been_debunked_in_2008/
     
  8. leenak macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    #8
    I think it'd be nice to let people know because Romney has spent a hell of a lot of money on his election and yes you can find out the money figures but many people don't realize how much they spend.
     
  9. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #9
    In big, bold letters the opening line of the U.S. Constitution starts out with "WE THE PEOPLE...". Not "we the wealthy" not "we the corporations that have pseudo-human status even though we are not human" but "WE THE PEOPLE". Last time I checked wealthy and poor alike only get 1 vote at the polls so I think the idea that the wealthy (not to mention non-human corporations) having a distinct advantage when it comes to electing officials and influencing policy is contrary to what the Founding Fathers envisioned.

    So it's immoral that I can't start blast mining in my backyard in the middle of Los Angeles?
     
  10. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #10
  11. fox10078 macrumors 6502

    fox10078

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    #11
    Totally, it's the evil immoral oilography protecting the last drops of the oils fields they are sucking out of LA, if you could just blast mine you may be rich!

    /Sarcasm
     
  12. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #12
    I'm not going to lie - my girlfriend is from the UK and she has donated to the President's campaign. When she gets home from work, I'm going to give her a stern look and a good talking to.

    :eek:
     
  13. Menel macrumors 603

    Menel

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Location:
    ATL
    #13
    As you said, each person only gets one vote. Doesn't matter how much money Trump tosses at recognition and commercials, no one is voting for him.

    You're putting to much weight on the money.
     
  14. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #14
    So you don't think that money can influence the outcome of elections and policy? Why do companies, collectively, spend 100's of millions of dollars a year on lobbying efforts in the U.S.? Why have Obama and Romney spent a combined 6 billion dollars on their presidential runs? Why do members of Congress spend 25% (if not more) of their time in office fund raising? Why do all these super PACs exist?

    How anyone can be unconcerned that money influences politics at all levels, across both sides of the isle, is startling. It's like the people that say advertising doesn't work without even realizing all the ways advertising influences their decisions.
     
  15. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #15
    It is sad that people would rather donate to a candidate than a charity or someone who is really in need of money. All those billions could go to better use.
     
  16. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #16
    Hummmmmm.

    Well here are the rules

    http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml
    The exception to that is this
     
  17. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #17
    I'd rather them go after lobbyists. If we want reform though I say ban corporations from donating and only allow each person 2500 dollars to contribute.
     
  18. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #18
    So this Obama.com web site, not owned or run by the campaign, redirects to Barack Obama's website. Big deal. The Obama campaign has no control over what someone else does with their domain.

    And Obama also has websites in Chinese, Arabic, Thai and Korean. Again, big deal. There are plenty of naturalized US citizens who may be more comfortable with their native language, especially when dealing with the complexities of a political campaign. Nothing wrong with translating your page for speakers of different languages.

    Hard to take anything Wing Nut Daily does seriously, but again, this is nothing. Their location should be irrelevant. I'm an American citizen, but if I were traveling out of the country, why shouldn't I be able to donate. So who cares if the IP was Pakistan? As far as why it allowed them to donate, I would imagine putting California for their state had something to do with it. Plus they were likely using an American credit card as I highly doubt they had access to a Pakistani credit card. It can be very difficult to get a credit card in the US if you are not a citizen and are not an SSN. It's not impossible, but very, very difficult as most banks will not give you one. But ultimately, it comes down to the fact that it's impossible to guarantee that everyone donating is a US citizen. Hence, the statement on the page that says "By clicking donate, I confirm that I am a United States citizen". Part of this process is based on the honor system since it's impossible to verify.
     
  19. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #19
    while i agree that it is unnecessary and excessive and possibly moves us to an (even ore) plutocratic society, i disagree it is money 'wasted'.

    if anything is a socialist redistribution of wealth from the very rich/corporations into the economy, including 'normal' people working at polls, in advertisement, etc. ;)
     
  20. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #20

    But, but, but, but, Bhengazi. :rolleyes:
     
  21. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #21
    Of course it is also a tax because corps can write off the expense but at the same time increase prices so it doesn't affect corp profits.
     
  22. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #22
    Little will change so long as the Supreme Court considers money to be speech and corporations to be people, combined with a winner-take-all system that favors two dominant parties.

    We need some big changes ... starting with proportional representation.

    I'm beginning to sound like a broken record.

    proportional representation ... [skip] ... proportional representation ... [skip] ... proportional representation ... [skip] ... proportional representation ...
     
  23. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #23

    And that is why this election is so important. The next president will appoint as many as 3 SC justices.
     
  24. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #24
    IMO step 1 for change has to be effectively ending gerrymandering. As long as candidates and/or their political parties can carve up districts to practically guarantee victory we will have problems. Elected officials have to be beholden to their electorate first and foremost and right now, generally speaking, they are not. I do agree that it's a multifaceted problem.
     
  25. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #25
    Simple short-term solution: all money spent on campaigning and political messaging (including off-election lobbying ads) shall be taxed at the rate of 25%; the tax shall be marked for a fund to be made available for political messaging by candidates and other interests.
     

Share This Page