Should contributions by individuals and corporations to political action groups be limited?

[lundie]

I need help with your answer and your opinion. It's for my class and it seems I can't fine any information about this question. Please help. Thnks.

[sebastiano]

My opinion:

we need a constututional amendment that limits political campaign donations to

Representaive election -- only those citizens who live in the congressional district can donate a max of $1,000 to a candiate running for election in that district

Senator -- only citizens living in that state the senator is running for election in, can donate up to $1,000 to a candiate

President - only US citzens can donate up to $1,000 to a candiate running for president


2. The $1,000 limit applies to both primary and general elections

IE: thats $1,000 per year max - to cover both elections



3. No corporate political spending at all
No union political spending at all
No political group spending at all

Only the actual campaigns of the candiates can spend money on political ads

4. that would make elected officials beholding to those who actually vote for them

No more outside money from other states in congressional elections, no 3rd party political attack ads

No more lobbyist donating to political campaigns or candiates

[iden]

No. If people or corporations want to support a cause and try to pass a law or get some sort of social movement going, that is within their right as US citizens. Now if they support groups that deny or agitate the safety or freedom of individuals then that would be a different story. People do this all the time in the form of lobbying and such. Also, in cases outside the US, it is researched and recorded that a dollar given to specific political groups or action groups has greater effect than a dollar given to the general population with no stringent circumstances on how it is to be used. But i digress.

[wakeley58]

Yes. The Koch brothers have for example pledged at least $60 million to Obama's defeat, which is probably more than what the average 10,000 people can contribute combined. Yes, money can represent speech, but you also need to consider the 14th amendment in that we need to provide equal protection of the law to everyone, and right now people with more money are entitled to much more speech than those without, which is extremely unfair and unequal.

[celeste]

Yes. The Koch brothers have for example pledged at least $60 million to Obama's defeat, which is probably more than what the average 10,000 people can contribute combined. Yes, money can represent speech, but you also need to consider the 14th amendment in that we need to provide equal protection of the law to everyone, and right now people with more money are entitled to much more speech than those without, which is extremely unfair and unequal.

To answer your question yes it should be but I will take it a step further and say that when it comes to elections on any and all levels that they should all be payed for with nothing BUT taxpayer dollars and it should be stricly controlled about how much speaking time each candidate gets to speak. Also do NOT listen the political party that each candidate belongs too because people have to vote for the person and not the party.

[erwin]

Yes.

Citizens United allows nonprofits to fund independent expenditures and electioneering communications without disclosing where the money came from. Citizens United created an environment in which it is perfectly legal for a shell non-profit corporation to engage in election-related spending on behalf of a hidden interest. And there is nothing to ensure that the hidden interest is not a foreign national, a foreign company or a foreign government.

[darrick34]

Off course it should. Corporations only represent themselves and their shareholders not all Americans.
If they contribute a large amount of money to a political organization then their influence would be enormous and potentially damaging to our democracy.

[blaeey]

Off course it should. Corporations only represent themselves and their shareholders not all Americans.
If they contribute a large amount of money to a political organization then their influence would be enormous and potentially damaging to our democracy.

[amdt57]

http://www.citizen.org/12-months-after

[vaiveatoish]

Nope. The more you pay, the more you play.