Donations to political parties

Should we let multinational companies donate to political parties?
In my opinion this is dangerous, as they are the ones who got their claws on people’s politicians. I think we should make it so that people could only donate to political parties $10 per person per month.
This way:
- political parties would not have to compete with each other expensively wasting their own resources.
- middle class could run for office and have a chance to win.
- who actually won became more obvious as it shows from the amounts of donations.
- people are not spammed with political campaigns everyday everywhere. If they wanted to know about the progress of their representatives they could just go on the internet or watch it on tv.

I couldn’t agree w/ ya more on this.
UNFORTUNATELY….our dumbass Supreme Court doesn’t.

@Karma
I googled it yeah, you americans have proposed this idea! nice, but unfortunately some of you are really evil. I hope OWS would bring this idea up, I’ve post it in their site as well.

I’ve send this to my representatives I hope they’ll respond positively. Thank you K

Donations to political parties are bribery in legal form. Do not allow it, or set a very strict maximum.

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Donations to political parties are bribery in legal form. Do not allow it, or set a very strict maximum.

Some said, not me, that the system of state funded political parties would make the politicians lazy, what do you think?

no, just make budget limits. you can grant them the money as a form of state budget, and make them reimburse the grant.

Some said, not me, that the system of state funded political parties would make the politicians lazy, what do you think?

lol! so, when they no longer have to appease the rich, that means they become lazy. great logic. maybe, instead, they would focus their efforts on better things. focussing on getting votes is already a step up, but that too means an absense of integrity.

you Americans don’t even have a clue what democracy is. i’m sorry i went there but really…

Yes, let them donate. But include a somewhat lower donation limit.

Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

you Americans don’t even have a clue what democracy is. i’m sorry i went there but really…

Well maybe not the ones that actually matter.

you Americans don’t even have a clue what democracy is. i’m sorry i went there but really…

Omega, we are still a republic. Why do you think we Americans cannot handle our own country? Man! Everyone can run our lives better than us!

the system of state funded political parties would make the politicians lazy

That in itself shows the faults of the system.

Originally posted by jhco50:

you Americans don’t even have a clue what democracy is. i’m sorry i went there but really…

Omega, we are still a republic. Why do you think we Americans cannot handle our own country? Man! Everyone can run our lives better than us!

that’s not what i said. but really, bargaining for votes is the biggest problem with Dutch politics…most of us try to vote for whoever doesn’t seem to be bargaining for votes but is actually integer to his own positions.

in the US, bargaining for votes would be a step up from bargaining for bribes. (with thanks to Darkruler for explaining donations as bribes)

Originally posted by jhco50:

you Americans don’t even have a clue what democracy is. i’m sorry i went there but really…

Omega, we are still a republic. Why do you think we Americans cannot handle our own country? Man! Everyone can run our lives better than us!

If ya had given the full quote, we would have the whole picture and it would have shown how he was opining on how the American (national) political system panders to the rich than WORKING to get votes (ya know…DEMOCRACY) from those “little” ppl who they represent (also?). Why he felt it was ""an absence of integrity"" is a mystery to me.

Perhaps he thinks we Americans ""cannot handle our own country"" because of the shitty job we do of it….esp. here lately. AND, I don’t mean Obama’s efforts. I find it to be more the fault of the GOP “conservatives” who want to take us back to 1950 or farther & give even more power to the rich he spoke of.

Well, just maybe (hyperbole alert) EVERYONE ""can run our lives better than us we!""

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

the system of state funded political parties would make the politicians lazy

That in itself shows the faults of the system.

Nah, we don’t have lazy politicians. They get good exercise “carrying water” for the rich & by stuffing the “payoffs” into their pockets.

I’m pretty much against ANY donation to politics by ANY corporation.
The idea that money somehow equates to speech is absurd, but that’s exactly the idea that has been backed again and again by the conservative side of SCOTUS, most notoriously in the 2009 Citizens United decision.

Kennedy’s decision in that case, while speaking grandly of free speech and protecting the rights and freedoms of citizens, was so utterly backwards in its thinking that it’s absurd.
He wrote of these protections, but somehow utterly failed to recognize the reality of his decision; that allowing vast corporate entities to spend unlimited sums of money on campaign ads in fact obliterates the voice of a common citizen. The Citizens United decision pretty much single-handedly tipped the scales in favor of corporate influence in elections for the foreseeable future, to the detriment of all of us.

Karma, you made an error. Politicians are a large part of the rich. If they aren’t rich when they are elected, they are soon after. Because of this I cannot really argue Omega’s point about bribes.

Softest, we don’t always see eye to eye, but I got bad vibes from that ruling as well. The Congress had gone too far in taking away the citizens voice and although the court released our voices, they may have gone overboard.

@ Karma

I couldn’t agree w/ ya more on this.
UNFORTUNATELY….our dumbass Supreme Court doesn’t.

You do know CU didn’t make it legal for corporations to donate to candidates or parties yes?

@ Dark

Donations to political parties are bribery in legal form. Do not allow it, or set a very strict maximum.

Except there is no evidence that backs this up.

My personal view is that camfin regulations should be far more deregulated with the exception of mandatory disclosures since, again, there is no hard data that contributions corrupt and the only rationale that the court has given to limit campaign contributions is prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption.

Why he felt it was ""an absence of integrity"" is a mystery to me.

mpe. if you would live in Europe for some years, you’d see a lot of differences. in many areas really, and this is true for all americans that haven’t lived in another country for a few years.

your country is so huge and you culture so disinterested in anything that doens’t have anything directly to do with the US, that you have no frame of reference for these things.

democracy is not about trying to get votes. that’s what ruins democracy. democracy is about a multitude of people running on their own beliefs, and everyone else being able to pick which of these beliefs represented by these people is closest to theirs.

if you are merely seeking votes, that means you are not staying true to your beliefs and are not truthfully representing a group of similar minded. it means you are merely being power-hungry. and this is bad for politics.

i really don’t think it’s a coincidence or even a surprise that all the peaceful, internationally respected, and relatively economically stable countries have coalition governments, where also the people actually care about politics.

Opps, Omega….ya slipped your post in before I could respon to issendorf.
The below is in response to his post directly above yours

OH, bullshit…..
any time ANYONE,,,ANYHOW gives Goliath full armor, an Uzi, etc…..
and puts the battle on a beach where the ONLY ammo for David’s sling is the sand…

Well, I pretty much guess the outcome of the battle will shift from the Biblical one.

CORPORATIONS HAVE FAAAAARRRRRRR MORE MONEY TO BUY ELECTIONS than do unions, individuals, & other SMALL groups.

THAT is what all the fuss is about….duh.

Supreme Court involvement

Priorities USA operates separately from the president’s re-election campaign. The group has struggled to compete with Republican super PACs, which have flourished since a 2010 Supreme Court ruling made it easier for outside groups to raise unlimited donations to promote candidates.

Supreme Court

Supreme Court HELENA, Mont. (AP) – Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia are backing Montana in its fight to prevent the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision from being used to strike down state laws restricting corporate campaign spending.

CU = Citizens United is a conservative non-profit organization in the United States.

AND, that ^{^}^ is utter bullshit. When a group advocates that huge corps w/ huge money making huge contributions to THE CANDIDATES THEY want…which will HIGHLY LIKELY respond by doing what those corps want….the “citizen’s control” goes right into the shitter.

The CU “might not” be responsible…..BUT, it is very strongly INVOLVED. AND, guess where that money to be involved comes from?

Except there is no evidence that backs this up.

No, of course not. If such things came out it would quickly be over. It is quite logical to assume one receiving a lot of “donations” from one another to be more understanding towards that person or group’s viewpoints. This is unnoticably linked towards these donations, and if there would be a right to give unlimited donations, you would still not be allowed to be suspicious of political parties being more forgiving towards firms giving them donations. It just “happened to be their priority”.

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Except there is no evidence that backs this up.

No, of course not. If such things came out it would quickly be over. It is quite logical to assume one receiving a lot of “donations” from one another to be more understanding towards that person or group’s viewpoints. This is unnoticeable linked towards these donations, and if there would be a right to give unlimited donations, you would still not be allowed to be suspicious of political parties being more forgiving towards firms giving them donations. It just “happened to be their priority”.

LOL….I don’t know WTF issen is doing here,,,,,I know he is much smarter than to try to get us to believe the crap he’s putting out about how American “politics” operate.

Anyway, Dark….ya nailed it again.
Here in America, it’s called a slush fund
Or, under the table
Crap by any other name still smells the same.
The end result: the little guy gets screwed.

LOL….I don’t know WTF issen is doing here,,,,,I know he is much smarter than to try to get us to believe the crap he’s putting out about how American “politics” operate.

I’ve read both Lawrence Lessig’s “Republic Lost” and John Samples’ “The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform.” Samples’ argument is far more convincing than is Lessig’s, in my opinion. Limiting money is limiting speech. I’d prefer the government have damn good data that supports their claims before they limit free speech.

No, of course not. If such things came out it would quickly be over. It is quite logical to assume one receiving a lot of “donations” from one another to be more understanding towards that person or group’s viewpoints. This is unnoticably linked towards these donations, and if there would be a right to give unlimited donations, you would still not be allowed to be suspicious of political parties being more forgiving towards firms giving them donations. It just “happened to be their priority”.

There is no correlation that shows that a PAC’s/individual’s contributions to a candidate changes the agenda setting of a member of Congress. If you’re going to make the leap that these things corrupt, the least you could do is supply some legit data.

You failed to read the first few sentences. If such things came out it would be quickly over. That is, if there was data that showed heavy corruption, this corruption would be swiftly dealt with (or at least be all over the world’s newspapers). You don’t have even have to “change” your viewpoints if you were supported from the beginning, and there’s no reason to go overboard the moment you’re donated to. How long would the research timespan be? One year? Five years? Ten? Furthermore, with not all donations triggering them to be put in a better spotlight, you’re certainly going to find much less on average. Lastly, you’ll find it pretty damn hard to prove that certain law changes somewhat profitable for certain firms are correlated with donations from such firms. It could be a coincidence, part of the viewpoints they’ve always had, or a response to certain economic events.

But the most important thing is that if political parties do respond positively to donations, you’ve effectively removed some freedom of speech (see below) from the entire population voting for that particular party (except the firms that donated). It is far too dangerous to keep it intact especially with it being a logical step.

Limiting money is limiting speech. I’d prefer the government have damn good data that supports their claims before they limit free speech.

Freedom of .. speech? Are you sure you’re not taking the concept too far? This seems more like an excuse to protect it than an actual relationship.

By this logic bribery is perfectly fine (and if it is, once again, my faith in humanity drops a level), it would be a breach of freedom of speech to make it illegal, as all you have to do is cover it up and have the counterparty pretend a change of mind (remember that this happens without bribery). It being so hard to prove is exactly the reason why it won’t come out, for a long while.

Note that I’m not making scientific claims. That would be silly. Instead, I present the thoughts of a fairly rational human being and his reactions to certain events. Objectivity is a pretty tough goal to achieve.

Okay, this is gonna be long.
And, my spell check won’t kick in…
please bear w/ my horrid spelling.

Originally posted by issendorf:

KKK said: LOL….I don’t know WTF issen is doing here,,,,,I know he is much smarter than to try to get us to believe the crap he’s putting out about how American “politics” operate.

I’ve read both Lawrence Lessig’s “Republic Lost” and John Samples’ “The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform.” Samples’ argument is far more convincing than is Lessig’s, in my opinion.

issen, I don’t know either of those guys. Do YOU? Why do YOU so trust their opinions. After all, that is what a belief in “second-hand” knowledge comes down to….a trust that the opinions—regardless of the ACADEMIC, ivory-tower accolades of the person—are just, relevant, realistic, etc.

All I have is: the many years of first hand observation, interaction with, actually doing a life time of experience. I’ve encountered a very, VERY large host of ppl w/ “opinions”….some of these ppl were “smart” as hell, yet they were pretty much “clueless” about how these opinions applies to the "real world. I’ve known ppl who had damn little formal education, yet they (being “street-smart”?) had a firm-grasp opinion on just what the fuck was going on in life.

I’ve been aboard a Naval ship where I saw a “green” ensign (right out of Ananappolis) w/ all of this training//knowledge//“book-learning”….yet, they would get LITERALLY lost on the ship,,,they knew shit little about the ship, about the men who maned her, etc. The smart ones realized this and took the Navy Chief Petty Officers as their confidonts//mentors. These CPO’s had real-life knowledge as opposed to “book-learning”. I believe the two can be extreeeemly beneficial when working in tandem.

issendorf said: Limiting money is limiting speech. I’d prefer the government have damn good data that supports their claims before they limit free speech.

Let me be very blunt here on the lofty idea of “Freedom of Speech”. With freedom comes responsibility. The greater the importance of the freedom,,,the greater the responsibility. Also, the greater the freedom…..the more important it becomes. Important things are highly subject to challenges….of all nature,,for many purposes.

There will be ppl who want it limited because of their beliefs….mostly because doing so will greatly benefit them. There are those who highly want it “deregulated” (the United Citizens group) so that doing so will highly benefit their ideology. This latter group includes religious zealots who want prayer back in school, etc. Let me be very clear on this: THERE ARE LIMITS PLACED ON “FREEDOM OF SPEECH”.

Okay, about YOUR “limiting money is limiting speech”. Ya damn right it is. AND, ya’re equally right that govt. should have damn good data that supports their claims before they limit “free” speech. Govt. should have over-whelming data that supports ALL of the laws it passes. BUT, do they? Even if they do, does the law reflect the common sense of said data? OR, does it reflect a twisting, biased version of it….based on various reasons//influences?

I hope ya see that I’ve already established the premise of how these reasons//influences by different organizations vie to affect “freedom of speech” in their favor. Taking YOUR ""limiting money is limiting speech"….I extend that to say: NOT LIMITING MONEY given to politicians’ efforts to be elected fails to limit the “levelness” of the playing field. This allows those with huge amounts of $$$$$$ who want even more $$$$$ will “donate” a lot of $$$$$ to ensure this happens. It is merely the “cost of doing business” for them.

Basically, I’m saying “big money” simply “buys” the politician they want in office so that thier interstes will be “given the consideration” that best serves THEM. Do YOU not think the politician, already of a mind to begin w/ that agrees w/ said interests, doesn’t understand how//why his “bread is buttered” by those who made his election possible because of the huge amount of money they spent on ensuring s/he got elected?

When there is money involved in “speech”….SPEECH SHOUTS,,, IT SCREAMS,,, IT DEMANDS ATTENTION. And it gets it. Money is powerful….the common person , by nature, responds & reacts to such power//influence….even if doing so is NOT in their own best interests.

On Bill Mahr the other night, a representative for the “right” reminded the panel that now, in addition to BIG MONEY, groups (respresenting the “little guys”?) such as uniions also could make unlimited contributions to campaigns. The bitch even did it w/ a straight face. For those who aren’t able to see the lunacy of her comparison….FOLLOW THE MONEY. Unions and other interest groups that advocate for the “little guys” have shit-for-nothing in the way of $$$$$$ when compared to BIG BUISNESS CORPORATIONS. Ya know, the very corporations who endeavor very hard to bust those unions.

Did ya NOT understand how on this $$$$$ thing for the two interest groups was very similar to my story about how the David//Goliath match up has a very different REALISTIC result in our modern political//buisness world? The “free speech” voice of the"little guy" is totally drowned out by the huge shouting of big business $$$$$.

This results in a “stacking-of-the-deck” highly in favor of those who made the politician’s election possible. So, YES…I want to see the money contributed to politicians be much fairer…on a more even playing field. But, I also want world peace & a cure for cancer & intellect be held in higher esteem than fucking sports.

Darkruler said: No, of course not. If such things came out it would quickly be over. It is quite logical to assume one receiving a lot of “donations” from one another to be more understanding towards that person or group’s viewpoints. This is unnoticably linked towards these donations, and if there would be a right to give unlimited donations, you would still not be allowed to be suspicious of political parties being more forgiving towards firms giving them donations. It just “happened to be their priority”.

issendorf said: There is no correlation that shows that a PAC’s/individual’s contributions to a candidate changes the agenda setting of a member of Congress. If you’re going to make the leap that these things corrupt, the least you could do is supply some legit data.

Can YOU show us any "real evidence that such a correlation DOES NOT exist? I think Dark & I have provided some pretty damned good REALISTICk, greed-powered human behavior for why such a correlation DOES EXIST. We see evidence of it very often in the news. Sitting Congress persons being given a $10,000 “honorarium” for given some bull shit speech stinks to high heaven of “bribery”. A pac paying for a 5 day stay at a luxury island resort…so the pac can have the Congress person’s “full attention” as the pac presents its interests in how upcoming legislation will be of “great benefit” to not only the group the pac represents,,,but to the “folks back home”.

Once again, I say: FOLLOW THE MONEY.

Yeah jhco.
Read a decent write-up (well, it was decent apart from the author basically using it to paint Roberts as the mastermind behind the decision :D) of the legal maneuvering that went into the case.
Seems the real opening for the Court’s decision came when a few of the conservative Justices cornered the representation from the Solicitor General’s office, and he answered poorly.
SCOTUS was very much on a mission with this one; the lawyer for CU was looking for a narrow ruling regarding PPV movies. The Court, for reasons of their own, directed questioning in such a way that they could use the case to overturn a LOT more in the way of regulation.
Judicial activism at its worst.

Googling just now, it seems there’s mounting pressure for the Court to reconsider the ruling. While I doubt that will happen…it really, REALLY needs to.

issen, I don’t know either of those guys. Do YOU? Why do YOU so trust their opinions. After all, that is what a belief in “second-hand” knowledge comes down to….a trust that the opinions—regardless of the ACADEMIC, ivory-tower accolades of the person—are just, relevant, realistic, etc.

Samples is a senior fellow at CATO and is a pretty hardcore libertarian and I’ve heard him speak twice. I have a tremendous amount of respect for him. Lessig has done a whole slew of pretty impressive stuff, if you’re curious, Wiki him. Lessig refers to himself as a liberal-libertarian and I’ve read a lot of his work as well, even stuff beyond the political realm. They are both very smart cookies and are 180-degree opposites on this issue. But you are right, these are these two men’s opinions and my personal allignment goes with Samples.

Let me be very clear on this: THERE ARE LIMITS PLACED ON “FREEDOM OF SPEECH”.

I know that, there is no need to yell. The problem is, is that limits of speech that are currently in place (Libel, slander, the classic fire in a crowded theater, etc.) have damn good justifications to them. There is no hard data (still waiting for someone to produce some) that shows campaign contributions corrupt. The thought that they maybe, just a teensy, weensy bit doesn’t strike me as a damn good justification to limit that aspect of speech.

I hope ya see that I’ve already established the premise of how these reasons//influences by different organizations vie to affect “freedom of speech” in their favor. Taking YOUR ""limiting money is limiting speech"….I extend that to say: NOT LIMITING MONEY given to politicians’ efforts to be elected fails to limit the “levelness” of the playing field. This allows those with huge amounts of $$$$$$ who want even more $$$$$ will “donate” a lot of $$$$$ to ensure this happens. It is merely the “cost of doing business” for them.

You see, you should read Lessig’s book. He talks about this – he calls it the gift economy and dependence corruption.

Do YOU not think the politician, already of a mind to begin w/ that agrees w/ said interests, doesn’t understand how//why his “bread is buttered” by those who made his election possible because of the huge amount of money they spent on ensuring s/he got elected?

Maybe, I really don’t know. The fact of the matter is, we don’t know if the money buys votes or if the congressperson held those same views and the third party supplied cash to keep someone who was sympathetic to their causes naturally in office.

On Bill Mahr the other night, a representative for the “right” reminded the panel that now, in addition to BIG MONEY, groups (respresenting the “little guys”?) such as uniions also could make unlimited contributions to campaigns.

Ok, I’ll say this again. CU does not allow unions or corps to donate to a party or a candidate, so stop arguing that they now can. It’s been outlawed for over 100 years.

Did ya NOT understand how on this $$$$$ thing for the two interest groups was very similar to my story about how the David//Goliath match up has a very different REALISTIC result in our modern political//buisness world? The “free speech” voice of the"little guy" is totally drowned out by the huge shouting of big business $$$$$.

Again, there is no correlation that a PAC or a third-party’s contributions have had any effect on Congress’ agenda setting.

Can YOU show us any "real evidence that such a correlation DOES NOT exist? I think Dark & I have provided some pretty damned good REALISTICk, greed-powered human behavior for why such a correlation DOES EXIST.

You’re making a broad assumption on what your opinion of human behavior is, that hardly seems like legit data.

Anywho, I can give data. At the risk of this becoming too long, I’ll start with just one, but if you want more, I’m glad to provide. We’ll start with the CU decision. If corporations thought that because of this ruling, which allowed them to make independent expenditures that could buy them all sorts of legislation (as you seem to imply), then stock prices should have shot upwards because, again, these nasty corporations would have been able to get any legislation they wanted. Except stocks didn’t shoot up. Stocks didn’t do much of anything the day after the CU ruling came down. So if the markets don’t see this as having virtually any effect, either positive or negative, for business, then why do you?