Should corporate support of political parties be banned?

Answer 1

Yes. Big Business needs to stop being involved in politics. As a result you have people like Bush come to power.

Answer 2

The single greatest threat to any democracy is the corrupting nature of money.

The US is NOT a democracy in any profound way but is rather a plutocracy where the political and monied classes form a coalition to rule.

The massive amounts of money handed over by Corporations and Unions to politicians to finance their campaigns totally negates a democracy for these politicians are de facto beholding to these monied interests and NOT TO THE CITIZENS WHO ELECTED THEM.

Do you think that these corporations and unions and wealthy individuals are donating all this money out of some sense of altruism ? GARBAGE.These monied interests expect/demand a return on their investment like all their investments and with a "wink and a nod" the elected politians do their bidding.

The citizen,their vote and the meaning of DEMOCRACY is deficated upon by this obscenely corrupting method of financinf elections.

All elections must be funded by public/government money period ensuring that those WE ELECT have NO other allegiance than to the voter.

For those that assert that this will mean large increases in taxes to fund such elections I say "dog doo" for where the hell do you think think these corporations/unions/wealthy are getting the money now thgey bribe our politicians with??

FROM US THE VOTERS through the prices og their goods and services.

WE THE PEOPLE are going to ultimately pay one way or the other.

Answer 3

IMHO, a lot of things about how the law treats corporations need to change. The basic concept of the corporation as a fictitious entity with the rights of a human being strikes me as fundamentally flawed.

But, short of a complete overhaul of the rights of corporations, no, it doesn't make sense to pick away at the rights they enjoy for political reasons. Either rationalize the treatment of corporations across the board, perhaps with a Constitutional Amendment, or leave things as they are.

Answer 4

There is some prohibition on for-profit corporations making donations already. But yes, I would favor such a ban as well as a strict limit on individual donations. This would prevent the ultra-rich like George Soros from skewing our political process.

Answer 5

Hell no, corporations are private entities, owned by private people who can spend their money however they want. If a political candidate supports a policy that would benefit that business, say the Big Corn lobby supporting a politician who wants to mandate ethanol research and development, they have every right to support them in any way. I ask you, what gives the government the ability to tell its people how they can spend their money? This is bearing out and McCain-Feingold is slowly being eaten away by principles of personal financial freedom.

Answer 6

how exactly would you go about that?

I think special interest support is just as if not more troublesome.

Yea maybe it wouldnt be such a bad thing if it was just all limited personal donations with no corporate or organizational donations...

The problem with reform in those areas is there has always beena loophole.

McCain and Feingold wasted our time with the reform bill they pushed that didnt really solve anything.

Mostly I just want to see accountablility. complete disclosure of where their money comes from.

Answer 7

In what country?

Answer 8

Yes.

Answer 9

Yes, and so should lobbying.