Here is a New Ad based on H.R. 1

PAC's are limited to a 5,000 donation.

So what was your point again?

 

None-the-less, the less money that influences our govt. members is the best for the honor of those brave govt. members...

 

Unless you can provide some proof of that we will all assume you are talking out of your ass with that assumption.

 

Oh I see. That is a fair point. Although, I would note that the "ethical wall" between things like the Trump Campaign and the Trump for President Super PAC is laughable. If a Corporation wanted to donate unlimited money towards a specific campaign or candidate, they can absolutely just fund a Super PAC which has the exact same aim.

 

The bill is mostly just a revision of the voters right act which expired due to a ruling by the Supreme Court.

 

Politicians routinely reward the donors and corporations disproportionately with government subsidies and appointments. It makes news when people swear off corporate donations specifically because it is so common for politicians to accept their funds. I am not entirely sure what other type of proof you would like to see.

But if you don't want to believe that Politicians alter their behavior and policies in an effort to obtain donations from the small segment of donors who provide the most money, that is your perogative.

 

It was a super pac that allowed AOC to beat her opponent.

You are forgetting that thanks to super pacs that a nobody can now run for office and compete with the millionaires.

You don't consider that a good thing?

 

Are you saying that this segment of the population doesn't deserve representation?

So if you are rich you should no longer have a say in how the government works?

Only poor people should have a say in that?

 

I do consider that a good thing.

But I also recognize that those examples are just as likely to take place before the existence of Super PACs and those very few instances of a good thing are far outweighed by the instances where the millionaires are just able to access even more money through Super PACs and crush their lesser funded and lesser connected opponents.

 

That's a dumb translation/strawman and you know it.

 

The guys down the street can only give a max of $570,000 total contributions. So even if it was 12 fat cats giving around 50,000 each and no small donations, how many votes can that get you Over the competition who only has to raise that 570,000 from smaller contributors who are more likely to donate for the candidate existing positions than some favor which can be done.

And yes they are some wonderful corporations out there and there are some wonderful unions also. Both don't belong in elections.

The liberal media is corporations not persons and they will lose their broadcast licence if that theoretical scenario ever played out. Either from conservative radio or liberal print.

And the corporate media is all owned by the same rich people who all own the same stock in the same companies. The days of the Chandler, McCormack, Ochs families owning and influencing opinion are done. The news room used to be a loss leader for the networks, they now sell themselves like whores.

 

No it isn't.

You don't want the rich to be represented in congress even though they pay the majority of our bills.

Tell me why Amazon should not have a voice when they generate billions of dollars of revenue for our nation, employ tens of thousands of people, essentially do far more than that guy living down the street from you?

Why do you automatically assume they are evil and against the best interests of this nation?

How did that view of yours become so warped?

 

So you are telling us that a corporation is legally allowed to give more to a campaign than an individual?

And not sure where you are getting that 570k from but here is the actual law on campaign contributions.

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/

 

Yes. It was - and still is - a dumb strawman.

 

If dems win the 2020 election HR-1 will be the least of our worries

But its a good example of where libs are going

 

They can not donate directly to a campaign. They act as a money laundering group, they can even pay a candate to speak. Now you and the law does not consider that a donation, but I do

 

You know that campaign dollars are very closely tracked and are publicly available so would you like to show us some of these paid speaking fees that went to campaigns?

I'm guessing that you probably won't.

 

Amazon is not a person, If besos want to contribute for something that benefits the company he has 10,000 people that work for him that he can encourage to vote that way and petition congress. Just like a union will.

 

Citizens United says corporations are now considered people.

You really need to catch up here.

 

Federal multi-candidate PACs may contribute to candidates as follows: $5,000 to acandidate or candidate committee for each election (primary and general elections count as separate elections); $15,000 to a political party per year; and. $5,000 to another PAC per year.

 

Which Is why campaign finance reform is needed.

 

Now you are arguing with me using a quote from a link I posted to refute you?

That's hilarious.

 

Yes they can contribute.

Regardless- I don't like the idea of PACs either from union or trade groups. Only Individuals and those individual donations should be limited in proportion to the number of constituents. also a senator from Texas or Cal will have more public funding and have access to more private funding than one from rhode Island or Deleware.

 

I've noted that too. What did it take to recover?

 

It started with the title, and went down hill from there.

I see a massive move by the New Democratic Party to insure voter fraud is facilitated, and opportunities to hide illegal voting are created.

What glorious things did you find in it?