Get Money Out Of Politics
Yes
Side Score: 8
|
 |
No
Side Score: 6
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
Commitment to pursuing one's ideologies for the advancement of the nation's interests without being deflected by the allure of the ''brown envelope'' is a noble sentiment which is almost nonexistent in politics. Money, not love makes the world go around. For instance, lobbying is really bribery in a suit. Here's a staggering figure;- the total spending on lobbying has ranged from $1.4 billion in 1998 to $3.3 billion in 2011. That's only the figures we know about. Private and government contracts are regularly awarded to the contractor who got to the client's decision maker first with the ''brown envelope''. It's the guy who is first in with the ''incentive'' who is best placed as it would be too dangerous for a contracts manager to take more than one bribe for the same contract. Corporations and institutions such as General Electric, and in the financial sector we have Goldman Sachs contribute 100s of millions to one or other of the two main parties. This is why the political system in the United States is not regarded as a true democracy. The big corporations have as much say/sway, if not more, than the electorate when it comes to passing, or not passing legislation. Anyone who thinks this enormous figure of ''under the table'' dosh can be eliminated from the political system, ( to call a spade a spade) is living in cloud cuckoo land. Side: Yes
1
point
|
First off, there already are laws that limit how much individuals can give to candidates. As far as superpacs go, that is a violation of our first amendment rights of free speech. The Supreme Court has already ruled on that. I noticed you left out union money. Then again, 90% or so goes to Democrats, so I can see why you would want that to continue. Or did you accidentally forget to mention that. Finally, by limiting money to candidates, it opens the door even wider for wealthy individuals to run and use their own money to outspend their opponents to get elected. Not a good idea, IMO. Side: No
Let's see: the number of contributing unions, and the money in their coffers.....compared to the number of corporations and the money THEY can afford to invest would likely come out to a 95:5 ratio at best. So, unions have no constitutional right to try to get the wishes of their membership across? Only corporations and religious groups should have that right??? Finally, Rich individuals spending their money is a way to get some of it BACK into circulation so the rest of us can have some. They STILL have to convince the voters, .....the ones who could USE some of that money. IMO. Side: Yes
1
point
That's an incredibly easy fix. Take contributions out and require candidates to run publicly funded elections with coffers that are obviously far smaller than what are used today. Keep all candidates on an equal fiscal playing field in that sense and take the legalized bribery that is campaign contributions out of the picture entirely. Not only would that end this pathetic choke hold the Democratics and Republicans have on our politics, but it would go a long way towards fixing the underlying corruption and incompetence that is so pervasive in DC. Side: Yes
1
point
Campaigns are about raising awareness. The most expensive campaigns raise awareness. The least expensive are the ones that raise the least awareness. The more money, the more awareness is raised within a campaign. No, they shouldn't be on equal playing fields, both candidates should be out their spreading the truth by reaching out to the most people with their awesome bribes. Side: No
No one will ever get money out of politics because politics is about money ! Whether it be on the federal level , state level or the local level money is what drives the politicians and if one can get the money out of the politics on all 3 of those levels they should propose it and see how well that works out ! Side: No
|
