Get Money Out

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by StruckANerve, Oct 4, 2011.

  1. StruckANerve macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Location:
    Rio Rancho, NM
    #1
    This has been moving around the Wall Street protests and it already has 100,000 signatures. I am just wondering what a liberal/progressive forum thinks about this proposition.

    http://www.getmoneyout.com/
    Unfortunately because of the Supreme court ruling this can only be pushed through as a Constitutional Amendment. Or so I heard. Not a law expert.

    I don't know if I completely agree with not letting an individual personally donate a small amount to show their support for a candidate, but Corporate money is not "free speech". That is a load of crap. Maybe it should start "No Person shall make a donation larger than "x" dollars and No corporation..."
     
  2. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #2
    Corporations only exist by state charter. States could individually amend their laws to restrict the charters eliminating corporate political speech. Alternatively, federal law can supercede state law, and perhaps a federal law to simplify all corporate, llc, s-corp and partnership rules could be passed in which every US corporation could be incorporated anywhere under the same rules. Those rules could easily prohibit corporate speech, or impose strict sanctions for abuse of the rules (up to and including loss of corporate charter).

    It would be easy to control, but the powers that would oppose it are far beyond what any wall st. protest can handle.
     
  3. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #3
    Elections are for individual citizens to cast their vote, not for corporations to corrupt the process. Corporations should not have the right to inject $ into elections.
     
  4. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #4
    Corporations are not people

    We need a constitutional amendment that asserts that corporations are legal entities only, are not people, and are not entitled to the rights of accorded real people.

    That said, this is not a totally simple issue. "Freedom of the press", in particular, is different now than it was when Benjamin Franklin owned his own printing press.
     
  5. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #5
    I think even if they can pass a different law the only way this would be effective would be through a constitutional amendment. And I do think something like this would be a good idea, although I think if we are going to ban any donations, we would need to have a provision for federal funding for campaigns, it's not a perfect proposal, but with a few tweaks it would be pretty good.
     
  6. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #6
    So all campaigns would need to be self-funded. You know you'd be limiting elections to only rich people, right?
     
  7. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #7
    Yeah that's why I said it needed some work. I'd like to see it changed to no self funding, no donations, and only federal funding. I'd also like to see the timeframe for elections greatly decreased, it's ridiculous that the 2012 election campaign is already starting. I'd love to see campaigning banned more than 2 months before the election that would be plenty of time to get your message out.
     
  8. SwiftLives macrumors 65816

    SwiftLives

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    #8
    Playing Devil's Advocate here...
    So my tax money would go to support the election of a candidate I don't like?
     
  9. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #9
    What we need to do is reform our damn tax code. Corporate money would dry up if they weren't buying tax loopholes and corporate welfare.

    Publicly funded campaigns is another way to eliminate corporate buying of elections.

    How can anyone think this isn't a major problem when a presidential candidate has to raise a $billion to get elected. Absurd.




    Your tax dollars already go support lots of things you don't like. And I view it as your tax dollars are going to be spent to offer citizens the most fair elections.
     
  10. SwiftLives macrumors 65816

    SwiftLives

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    #10
    On the other hand, spending billions provides jobs. Specifically, media, advertising, and marketing jobs. I know of some small community newspapers that rely on the money they make every fall in election season.

    Would you propose that candidates get free, but equal commercial airtime and advertising?

    That's certainly a valid point. My tax dollars pay for the secret service and protection for opposing presidential candidates as well.
     
  11. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #11

    No. They would have to buy ads with the money they are provided for the election. I don't want to run their campaigns, I just want to stop others from buying elections and politicians.
     
  12. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #12
    And who decides whether a candidate gets money and how much?

    It seems to me that publicly funded campaigns tend to work in favor of entrenched interests and against those challenging the status quo. Inevitably some appointed bureaucrat will be given the task of doling out the cash and that's a formula to protect the insiders.
     
  13. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #13
    I think the goal should be to make election campaigns cost less, not to give candidates access to huge piles of money to burn on TV commercials and the like.

    At the very least I'd like to see spending limits on campaigns, and one way or another corporate money pipelines to candidates need to be further capped and bottlenecked.
     
  14. Jagardn macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2011
    #14
    I agree with no corporate funding. But to be fair, that would mean no Union funding either.
     
  15. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #15

    There would have to be thresholds to obtain public money. We can't finance any Tom, Dick or Harry unless they have some bonafide support. As for doling it out, they would all get the same amount of money. The cost of a campaign to be financed with public money could be a formula based on population, number of media markets in the state or others.

    I'm also in favor of term limits. The fact that our Senate has 22 members over the age of 70 with many having been there for decades is sickening.
     

    Attached Files:

  16. Teh Don Ditty macrumors G4

    Teh Don Ditty

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland
    #16
    This. Friggin This.

    I think 2 terms at 6 years a term max should be mandated for Congress.
     
  17. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #17
    I'd take it a step further. No person shall be allowed to serve in Congress for more than 12 years. I'd also like to see a 4 year House term and no more of this ******** 2 years. As soon as they get elected/re-elected, they start all over again.
     
  18. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #18
    Unless they have bonafide support? But who determines that and when during the process? To me, it should be the voters and not some government commission that determines who has bonafide support.

    Having anybody but the voters decide sounds like a formula for exclusion of minority viewpoints. A commission is only going to look to the same old set of establishment candidates. An example; no commission would have declared Eugene McCarthy a "bonafide" candidate at the start of the 1968 election yet he started a movement that drove LBJ out of the race.

    Regardless of whether or not I'd ever vote for them, I would much rather have a George McGovern, a Ross Perot or a Ron Paul be able to appeal to directly to the voters for support instead of being shut out of the process.

    As for term limits, on that I agree with you.
     
  19. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #19
    Perhaps you could require petitions to get on the ballot, sort of like is currently required for third parties to get on the ballot, but have one standard for the entire country. If someone gets enough signatures to get on the ballot then that could be a sign that they have enough support to be worth giving federal money to.
     
  20. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #20

    Obviously there would be rules as to what's required to get on the ballot and funding. Petitions are already used widely. And I'd like the rules to be national. No more of all this 50 different rules crap.
     
  21. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #21
    If the problem is money from corporations, then any solution should just address that problem, and not be a vehicle that further reduces the individual citizen's ability to participate in the political process. If anything, we should want to make the process more accessible and more open.

    the main rule should be that the voters should decide....not some commission
     
  22. Teh Don Ditty macrumors G4

    Teh Don Ditty

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland
    #22
    We're in agreement for the 12 years. I like the 4 year house term as well.
     

Share This Page