It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Political Funding.....Level The Playing Field

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 10:10 PM
link   
I see a desperate need for reform in regards to funding of politicians. It seems that corporations and well funded lobby groups, have far too much influence on the federal government.

I contend that potential candidates for Congress, as well as the President, should be strictly limited in the amount, and sources of Campaign funds. I realize that there are already laws in place regarding funding of politicians, but they hardly seem to be effective in preventing the voice of "Big Money" from drowning out the voice of the average Citizen.


I think this could be easily solved by just a few modifications to our laws....

1) End ALL donations from corporations.

2) End ALL donations from special interest groups.

3) Require that ANY donation be from an individual Citizen of this country.

4) Set an annual limit on the amount that can be donated, to no more
than the average citizen could afford. ($500?)

5) Provide a forum for ALL parties platforms to be aired. (I'm sure that the
government could find a few of our tax dollars for air time on radio and
television to facilitate this.)


Perhaps if man were of unquestionable moral character, this wouldnt be neccessary, but we all know that this isn't the case. The temptation for politicians to be swayed in their convictions by the people with the most money, is far to great, to just trust that they will do the right thing. Perhaps this is far too simple a plan, but the I feel the American people are losing the ability to influence the government on any meaningful level.

Something has to be done.




posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   
I can't say that it will never happen, but I dont see the politicians cutting their own throat by making anything similar to this happen.

Their $1200-a-plate fundraisers would be out the window.

I wish it would happen as it would cut down on the amount of political commercials on TV and it would curtail most of the political signs littering people's yards.

But I just don't see it.

JDub



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Limit others freedom of speech, but don't you dare mess with mine. Is that what you are saying?



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   
If that was addressed to me, no.

The way I read the post of the OP, the goal is to make the politician actually work on their campaign and not just deluge the airwaves with ads because they have the most money directed to them by their party.

It would also limit some of the corporate lobbying like we have seen with Delay and Cunningham (just to name examples). This is not limiting their free speech, it is limiting the inequality of it.

Powerful special interest groups would have the same "pull" with a politician that a small organization would have.

JDub


[edit on 4/15/2006 by BlueTileSpook]



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 07:12 AM
link   
I certainly wouldn't want to limit anyones freedom of speech, quite the contrary. I see the need for serious, comprehensive reform, so that the people who our govt. is supposed to represent, actually HAVE a voice. Remember "....of the people, by the people, for the people.", it seems these days it's "....of the lobbyists , by the money, for the corporation." To expect our govt. to work towards making this country what the people want it to be isn't possible if the voices of those with money are heard more than the average person. Every citizen should have an EQUAL voice, not dictated by the amout of contributions they can dole out.

Perhaps I'm alone in my thinking, perhaps not. I look to the future, and see what kind of country we're going to leave our children. Will THEY have a voice, will THEY have an oppurtunity to form this nations policies? If the course that we're on is continued, I'd say thats an impossibility.

Just my two cents. I want them to count as much as anyones.....



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   
It's really very simple. Money follows power and power follows money. If you want to reduce the amount of money used to lobby folks in Washington then reduce Washington's power.

[edit on 20-4-2006 by El Tiante]



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   
We can limit the amount of money given to politicians all we want, it doesn't matter, because individuals and corporations can allways make public statements, commericials, have rallies, take out ads, etc etc.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by OneLessSheep
I contend that potential candidates for Congress, as well as the President, should be strictly limited in the amount, and sources of Campaign funds.
:
I think this could be easily solved by just a few modifications to our laws....

1) End ALL donations from corporations.

2) End ALL donations from special interest groups.

3) Require that ANY donation be from an individual Citizen of this country.

4) Set an annual limit on the amount that can be donated, to no more
than the average citizen could afford. ($500?)

5) Provide a forum for ALL parties platforms to be aired. (I'm sure that the
government could find a few of our tax dollars for air time on radio and
television to facilitate this.)


Unless you prohibited them from using their own personal funds, the country would rapidly turn into one run by rich men only.

And even with all the suggestions you list, they'd find a way around it. All of a sudden there would be a spike in donations of "free" services from corporations.

You are right, though...something has to be done. I suggest term limits. That would prevent them from becoming entrenched and too powerful. It is almost impossible to unseat an incumbent with any length of service.

Term limits would also give third party candidates a much better chance at getting elected.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Wow that's an extra-special bad idea

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

- Thomas Jefferson



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by OneLessSheep
I certainly wouldn't want to limit anyones freedom of speech, quite the contrary. I see the need for serious, comprehensive reform, so that the people who our govt. is supposed to represent, actually HAVE a voice. Remember "....of the people, by the people, for the people.", it seems these days it's "....of the lobbyists , by the money, for the corporation." To expect our govt. to work towards making this country what the people want it to be isn't possible if the voices of those with money are heard more than the average person. Every citizen should have an EQUAL voice, not dictated by the amout of contributions they can dole out.

Perhaps I'm alone in my thinking, perhaps not. I look to the future, and see what kind of country we're going to leave our children. Will THEY have a voice, will THEY have an oppurtunity to form this nations policies? If the course that we're on is continued, I'd say thats an impossibility.

Just my two cents. I want them to count as much as anyones.....


No, you are not alone in your thinking. I want to direct you to another thread currently still active that discusses possible solutions. I'm kind of partial to mine though, as I'm already preparing a letter for it. You can find the idea in pretty much it's entirety in the following thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

There are some subtle differences in the core concept proposed there, but those changes happened very recently, and I have yet to update them. Let me know what you all think of it.

TheBorg



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join