Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Little

Campaign cash compromise-what say you?

Rate this topic

87 posts in this topic

Campaign finance reform.  

 

1)Campaign donations taken only from individual US Citizens.  Nobody else. No illegal aliens.  No socialist Soros, no El Chapo money.  Individual US citizen only.

 

2)Payment in cash or certified check only.  No trades for products services etc*

 

3)Upon payment, donors name address and email addy are posted on a website hosted by the candidate.  Funds cant be accessed until the name is posted.

 

 

 

How about that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*To facilitate, all the current laws regarding Federal intrusion on bank accounts when large sums of cash are moved are eliminated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as everyone is clear that includes Union donations also.

A unionist can donate.  A patriot can donate.  A homeless guy can donate (as soon as he gets a valid home address).  Individual citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's a start,

but in the end the left will still be complaining that right wing policy is bought and paid for by the Kochs

and the right will be complaining that left wing policy is dictated by Soros.

 

I'd prefer restricting money and returning to the days when people and their votes mattered more than donors and their cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's a start,

but in the end the left will still be complaining that right wing policy is bought and paid for by the Kochs

and the right will be complaining that left wing policy is dictated by Soros.

 

I'd prefer restricting money and returning to the days when people and their votes mattered more than donors and their cash.

No, not a start.  Thats it.  Yes or no?

Restricting free speech is not how we roll in the usa.  There are places where you can get plenty of that.  Just not here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, not a start.  Thats it.  Yes or no?

Restricting free speech is not how we roll in the usa.  There are places where you can get plenty of that.  Just not here.

I am not for restricting free speech,

I am for capping money,

 

you aren't crazy enough to think they are one and the same..... are you?

 

 

on a related note, 

I often hear the old saw about insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results,

this would apply well to Republicans,

they have a mental disease,

 

Time after time after time they lament that the Republicans they vote for won't do the right thing,

instead they bow to the wishes of their big Donors,

You guys call them RINOs and promise next time will be different,

you seem to GRASP the fact that money is the problem

yet you will fight tooth and nail to defend the ability of the big donors to pay your politicians to do things you don't want done,

 

it's never gonna change,

till the politicians you vote for depend MORE on your votes,

than they depend on the donors cash.

 

and you fight to make sure that doesn't happen.

 

pure awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not for restricting free speech,

I am for capping money,

 

you aren't crazy enough to think they are one and the same..... are you?

 

 

on a related note, 

I often hear the old saw about insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results,

this would apply well to Republicans,

they have a mental disease,

 

Time after time after time they lament that the Republicans they vote for won't do the right thing,

instead they bow to the wishes of their big Donors,

You guys call them RINOs and promise next time will be different,

you seem to GRASP the fact that money is the problem

yet you will fight tooth and nail to defend the ability of the big donors to pay your politicians to do things you don't want done,

 

it's never gonna change,

till the politicians you vote for depend MORE on your votes,

than they depend on the donors cash.

 

and you fight to make sure that doesn't happen.

 

pure awesome.

I'll just take that as a no on compromise.

 

Anyone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just take that as a no on compromise.

 

Anyone else?

take it however you wish,

I guess it's technically a non compromise to your hypothetical scenario.

 

if such a deal was actually being considered in Washington I might support it as being a step in the right direction.

 

it's clear that most Republicans seems entrenched in defending the flow of cash,

despite how much they whine about the results it gives them.

 

so I don't expect a common sense bill to be passable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Little, beautiful.

 

"How about that?"   Another question.    :waiting:

 

Your proposal sounds pretty insightful; but, why don't you ask the "weirdo" Bernie hows he doing it and tell us something instead of asking us everything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Little, beautiful: "... one what?"

 

You might have asked me about what you didn't understand:

 

 

 

Source of Funds (Campaign Cmte Only), 2011-2016


Individual Contributions 
 - Small Individual Contributions
 - Large Individual Contributions

$1,160,893
$841,720 (70%)
$319,172 (27%)

(97%)

 

PAC Contributions

$15,255

(1%)

 

Candidate self-financing

$933,171

(78%)

 

Other

$-912,637

(-76%)

NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for 2011-2016 and based on Federal Election Commission data available electronically on January 20, 2016 (for Fundraising totals, Source of Funds and Total Raised vs Average) and on November 16, 2015 for Top Contributors and Industries. In the "Source of Funds" chart, "Large Individual Contributions" refer to all contributions from unique individuals aggregating to more than $200 within a cycle, and "Small Individual Contributions" refer to all contributions from unique individuals totaling $200 or less within a cycle. ("Help! The numbers don't add up...") 

 

The organizations themselves did not donaterather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

 

Why (and How) We Use Donors' Employer/Occupation Information

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center.

 

About the breakdown of contributions size

The breakdown of large and small individual contributions comes directly from the candidate campaign's FEC filings. The FEC requires that the campaigns itemize contributions of $200 or more, and this is what the vast majority of campaigns do. Smaller contributions are usually summarized in a single line item and reported as "unitemized contributions". CRP uses the "unitemized contributions" total as the "Small Individual Contributions" figure. A few candidates, in an effort to completely disclose their donors, are itemizing all contributions, including those below the reporting threshold of $200. When they do this, the Large Individual Contributions figure listed actually includes both Large and Small Contributions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.