It's a free country. You cannot rightfully tell anyone what they can and cannot give to another. Even if it is money from a company donated to a candidate, which results in an unfair advantage over another candidate.
If they want to the people in the country should each be able to donate as much as any other person. Campaigns should be for the people, and should be funded by the people, not some fat cats calling all the shots.
In the old Lockheed corruption case and so many other famous cases, we know why the political leaders were compelled to take a decision favoring the corporates which were incorrect. Thus happened because they have to get the financial aid from such big and corrupt corporates.
I believe political campaigns should limit the amount of corporate donations they receive because the politicians are influenced by the amounts they receive from corporations and that will make them vote a certain way on specific issues, which leads to corruption.
Yes, I agree that the amount of corporate donations they receive for political campaigns should be limited. The very fact that the way the political campaigns is conducted and utilized should be limited. Rather than spending the money and corporate donations on political campaign it can be utilized for some other purposes, like eradicating poverty and free medical and health care purposes.
Politicians are elected to represent Americans as a majority. The interest of the average American should be the number one priority of any politician. Accepting corporate donations inadvertently encourages special interest decisions in favor of such corporations, even if the decision might be somewhat damaging to the "average" American. I also believe all campaigns should be run with a tax fund that gives equal amounts of campaign money to each politician and it is the only money that can be used in campaigning. If you do this and also make slanderous and negative campaign tactics illegal, politics would finally start heading in the right direction.
Without limiting corporate contributions, we have an unlimited influence
of financially motivated public officials. If a company helps a candidate
get elected, that candidate more often than not will repay the favor
somehow once in office. For the most part, this removes the voting John
Q. Public from the process and creates affiliate politicizing. Very undemocratic!
Yes there should cause if someone made an offer to a candiate and they take it they have to do what they tell them. And that's all we need is our president being controled. Donald Trump gets in everything will be fixed. If Hillary gets in we are all dead.
Free speech is important but so is a successful government
government is for the people by the people
the amount of money donated to candidates has made it so the people with a lot of money run things
people can pay their way to a vote for a certain candidate instead of all of the other people voting on who they like best
politicians are meant to represent the all of the people
although not everyone will have the same opinions, the politicians are our vote and choice
Big companies hide their earnings in offshore accounts and pay little to no tax. It is completely legal and protected by loopholes our representatives have put in place. The cost of this for large corporations comes in the form of campaign contributions. No one hides it. It's blatant corruption, and all the big companies do it. They would not be competitive if they didn't.
If we limited that shit then we'd be like North Korea bro. We got rights up in this motha fucka. We can give people money n ads, whatever da fuck we want. My final word is freedom yo. It's all about dat ability to do what u please. That's why we da best. Where y'all think donuts came from? We put a hole in a pastry cus we could, American ingenuity dawg. USA! USA! USA!
I have a doctorate. I know what I'm talking about. Do you have a doctorate? I bet you don't. Therefore I'm smarter than you. I can spell supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. Can you do that? You can't. Because uo didn't go to graduate school on a fellowship for 23 years. Dude, trust me.
If we attempt to limit the amount of money the lizard men receive from corporations, they will take it as a form of retaliation. People need to be aware we are being watched at all times. Once you see he triangles in your life, you will understand the answer. Hail Quetzalcoatl.
I am right because I am right. Since I am right then that means that I am not wrong, therefore I am right. I am as right as a right angle on a triangle. Not an equilateral triangle, but a right triangle. There is no doubt I am right because I am right.
Jf dkfjsad fisdijf difjdiof difisd[fjdjfiodjfdi id fid ifihfid fidjfidf f fff h h fh dn dn dn dn nd dn n nd nd dn dsjf dsf asdnfdsnf adskf dskfdksfsdkf sdk fskf ksd fknsd fnd fknds fkd fdnk fnd fnd fd fdn fnd fd fds fksnd fksnd fskdn fskdnf skdnf skdnf s
If i want to donate to a charity i believe in or a religious foundation i agree with, then it is an expression of my values. This would be protected by the first amendment. Any laws against this would clearly be an infringement on your civil liberties. Although i don't think having unlimited donation is necessarily a good thing, to restrict it would be infringing on those individuals rights of expression.
Corporations are not people, and money is not speech, but there is no good reason to dictate what companies or people do with their own property.
1. Since labor unions and other special interest groups use money to persuade candidates and the public, and this is seen as an altruistic practice of democracy, why should it be different for other groups of people who have different political...Oh, I see.
2. Money does not equal influence. I'll use Chik-Fil-A as an example. Even though the company hires and serves individuals in the LGBTQ community, and even has many LGBTQ restaurant managers, liberals are against letting one man--the CEO--answer a question he was asked about his personal views. Views that have zero effect on his employees or customers. In truth, his donations to anti-gay groups are mostly used to pay for commercials, websites, protest signage, and perhaps gay conversion programs. Notice how this money doesn't go into the voting booth and pull the lever for you. This money doesn't drag LGBTQ teens to these conversion camps. The only thing that affects an election is the voters. If you REALLY want to "stick it" to Chik-Fil-A, you should buy their food, let them spend all the money they want on anti-gay campaigns, and then--when it comes time to vote on gay marriage, vote for it. Then, all of those donations are just wasted, and you still get to eat chicken and waffle fries! But that would require you not to believe everything you hear on TV and the internet, huh?
3. Corporations aren't all run by conservatives (of course, that's the only reason liberals want to cap corporate donations). The truth is, there are also a ton of liberal millionaires and billionaires, such as George Soros, Warren Buffett, Richard Branson, Harvey Weinstein, Russell Simmons, and Ted Turner. On top of that, we have virtually every Hollywood actor and recording artist that you know of. Even Zach Braff, a mediocre B-list actor, has a net worth of $22 Billion. Jake Gyllenhaal is worth $65 Million. Imagine adding together all other liberal actors, plus bigwigs like George Clooney--who regularly holds celebrity fundraisers for Obama--and the playing field suddenly seems level. How is all of this money any different than a similar amount being donated by corporations?
4. NO TWO PEOPLE are ever going to have the same amount of money, and two people with the same amount will still have varying levels of influence, depending on how that money is spent.
5. This is only an example of class warfare. Rather than debating political ideas, or the content of one's character, liberals are debating net worth and how companies spend their own money.
6. Who do you think pays for most libraries, universities, charitable donations, and medical research, and hires the most people? When was the last time you got a job from a social worker or philosophy professor? Who do you think gave more money to UC Berkeley, MasterCard or Michael Moore?
Corporations should be allowed to donate funds as they see fit to candidates that support the corporation’s objectives in business. The corporations hope that by donating to “business friendly” candidates they might receive favorable treatment on matters related to their future success. Then they can increase their profits and return greater value to their business.
By limiting the amount of money people can donate it is a violation of freedom of speech because money is the form of words here. So this new "law" about limiting the amount of money to be donated is in violation of the constitution. The people who are making these laws, also made the constitutoin, and are being hypocritic about this matter
They should not be forced to limit the amount of money they receive from others considering the people have a choice whether or not to donate. If you are stupid enough to donate to a bad political campaign, then that is your fault in the first place. Also, money is good.