Corps As People with 1st Amendment Rights

[workpublic]

imho only individuals who are registered to vote, should be able to donate up to 10Gs to an individual candidate. no donations to "parties". no PACS. no foreigners. no Corps.

[billisonboard]

Feb 21, 2012 14:20:40 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

Well lets think about this. I own a private held incorporated company. Licensed to do business any where in the US. No one is accountable to it's success or failure but me. But I am also a person. I make all the financial decisions and if I want to support a candidate that is in my corporations best interest is that wrong? Of course not I would be stupid not to.

Here is where it becomes an issue in my mind. Handyman2 the person gives "max $X" to candidate. Handyman2 the corporation gives "max $X" to candidate. (Hell, there are people with a number of different corporate "identities" which could "each" give "max $X".) Each person, no problem. Each person times number of corporate "persons" they are, problem.

[Deleted]

"imho only individuals who are registered to vote, should be able to donate up to 10Gs to an individual candidate. no donations to "parties". no PACS. no foreigners. no Corps."

I don't understand your comment. Nobody can donate 10Gs to an individual candidate. Not even corporations or PACs. The only way to donate 10Gs toward a specific candidate's election would be to donate it to a Super PAC that supports him or to directly spend the money yourself on ads.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Here is where it becomes an issue in my mind. Handyman2 the person gives "max $X" to candidate. Handyman2 the corporation gives "max $X" to candidate. (Hell, there are people with a number of different corporate "identities" which could "each" give "max $X".) Each person, no problem. Each person times number of corporate "persons" they are, problem.

All the big national labor unions, like the Teamsters, UAW, etc., all have local branches. Each branch chapter could do the same thing.
Yeah, you make a good point.

[Deleted]

"Handyman2 the person gives "max $X" to candidate. Handyman2 the corporation gives "max $X" to candidate."

If you're talking national offices, only individuals can give money, not corporations. And for super-PACs, I don't think there's a dollar limit, so there's no need to play those games.

[workpublic]

I don't understand your comment. Nobody can donate 10Gs to an individual candidate

hence the word "should"

it's my campaign finance reform.

any individual who is also registered to vote can donate up to 10G to individual candidates per election and that's it.

only registered individuals can donate. not pacs, etc.
only individual candidates can accept donations. not parties, etc.

the amount could be lowered to 5k or 2.5 k.

[Deleted]

OK. Gotcha. Although I don't think it's far from that already. I think the amount is closer to $5k. And a PAC can only give $5k, so candidates donations from PACs are a relatively small % of the total (plus PACs are funded by individuals). I'm not sure what the rules are for foreigners, but I'd bet they're not allowed to donate.

[fairlycrazy23]

I still think the best way to reduce spending on national elections is to reduce the size and scope of the federal government, why spend endless amounts of money on somebody that doesn't hold power over you.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2012 17:07:07 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

I still think the best way to reduce spending on national elections is to reduce the size and scope of the federal government, why spend endless amounts of money on somebody that doesn't hold power over you.

in feudal states, there is no need to spend any money at all.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 21, 2012 22:31:06 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 21, 2012 17:07:07 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

I still think the best way to reduce spending on national elections is to reduce the size and scope of the federal government, why spend endless amounts of money on somebody that doesn't hold power over you.

in feudal states, there is no need to spend any money at all.

Yeah- I agree completely. Any rolling back of our enormous federal bureaucracy would lead directly to a feudal state.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2012 22:41:36 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Feb 21, 2012 22:31:06 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

in feudal states, there is no need to spend any money at all.

Yeah- I agree completely. Any rolling back of our enormous federal bureaucracy would lead directly to a feudal state.

i was thinking of the dark ages, Paul- where feudal kingdoms were decidedly local. do you really find that insane? really?

[billisonboard]

Don't sweat it dj, I got it.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2012 22:46:56 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Don't sweat it dj, I got it.

seriously- sometimes the responses i get really DO cause me to question my sanity. but then i recover my perspective. ;D