Should there be a law in place to not allow politicians to accept money from corporations.?

Question

Should there be a law in place to not allow politicians to accept money from corporations, or special intrest ?

Make a set amount to be donated from a politician, and what he gets is what he gets. I think this will force political leaders to focus more on what the citizens want, and their veiws will go along with what they are in support of, which will show when the donations come flowing in.

Faith White - I agree corporations should have a voice, but I doubt any one would run a company into the ground and force them out of buisness. There needs to be a balance, and the freetrade is not it. FYI I did not like Kerry, so I voted for GW. Sometimes I regreat me desicion, but Kerry did scare the hell out of me.

Answer 1

That's a wonderful idea. The same limits should be put on individual contributions.

Several attempts have been made to enact such a law, but corporate legal machines and political managers like Rove (but on both sides) have managed to circumvent them every time. What we need is a good law, and ENFORCEMENT of the spirit and meaning, not the letter of the law.

Answer 2

Have you ever heard of the McCain Feingold campaign finance reform. There are limits - in federal races - of how much an individual, a PAC or an organization can contribute to any race. When you contribute you must disclose who employs you to make sure an employer doesn't coerce his employees. You have heard the term "I am .... and I approve this ad." That means the ad was paid for with funds from the campaign. The George Soros of the world fund ads that have no contact or approval from the candidates. If an organization does a mailing on behalf of a candidate - a volunteer must touch every single piece of the mailing and a volunteer must accompany it from the printer to the place the volunteers are doing something to it to the post office. All along the process there are reports to the FEC.

Why do you think that corporations should have no influence. They employ many millions of people providing them with salaries (so they can pay income tax and social security), they provide them with health insurance, retirement plans and much more. Why should the government be allowed to control them but they not have the right to influence that government. Oh wait, they can always be like Kerry's Heinz operation - out source so they don't have to pay benefits or even a living wage and put people on unemployment so you and I have to pick up the tab.

What citizens are you talking about? The ones who don't vote? The drug addicts and lazy lay-abouts who don't want to work? In my world politicians listen to the citizens who get involved. Not just those who wag their mouths. If you become educated on the issues and know your community you can have influence even if you have no money. A millionaire has one vote - a middle income voter has one vote. Every vote does count.

Answer 3

Various attempts have been made to do just that over the last 60 years. But the even the most Liberal Supreme courts have consistently held that such laws are a violation of the first Amendment right to free speech. The reasoning of the court being by not allowing corporations to contribute the law is eliminating their right to express themselves. When even very liberal Surpreme Courts uphold this reasoning there is very little reason to believe anything will change.

Answer 4

Yes there should be but I don't think the big bubba's are ever going to let that happen. I think its a shame that only the rich can pull it off....running for President.....because it leaves the voters with not much to choose from. It eliminates a lot of good people.

Answer 5

We desperately need to change a few things in Washington, but their the ones who make the rules.Their not going to change a thing when it effects their pocket books. The corporations are running this country through the politicians. Keep dreaming!

Answer 6

relies upon on who you ask, and the that technique of them giving the senator money. by technique of definition of U.S. regulation, it really is against the law for any public reputable to settle for any type of repayment or charity, from any source except their preset income. which skill a organization couldn't deliver them on holidays, provide them money, restoration their abode/automobile, or something. in spite of the indisputable fact that, marketing campaign money seem an extremely criminal thanks to bribe senators. So sure it really is amazingly unlawful, in spite of the indisputable fact that, theres a loop-hollow although. a organization or corporation can donate any wanted volume to a public officials marketing campaign money, as it really is in basic terms helping them and dealing in route of criminal democratic beliefs. the position the money is going from the marketing campaign fund is not in any respect ever investigated and everyone writing guidelines, will comprehend a thanks to good label income a otherwise lost way. yet another interesting loop-hollow is with kinfolk, if a organization the position to donate or provide money to the significant different or the different buddy of a public reputable, or senator, it really is punctiliously criminal and needs no justification or rationalization. This matches doubtless good with the IRS tax clause that enables everyone to furnish their significant different as a lot as a million million money tax loose and in finished. those who write guidelines, are writing them in way that they could nonetheless be damaged.

Answer 7

no politician should be able to accept any money, gifts, trips or compensation. there also should be a max spending amount per campaign.

we need some kind of law to stop all the rich dudes from stealing elections.

Answer 8

wait... you mean, you don't like living in a country where arms manufacturers and pharmecutical companies run everything? you must be a communist hippy. ;)

Answer 9

no illegal funds under the table seems to work just fine

Answer 10

YES