I have been exploring the area of how campaigns are financed recently and wanted to get opinions from you guys concerning a few things. One of the major questions I have is why we allow corporations to donate money to political campaigns? Can anyone give a reason why this could be thought to good for citizens?

Corporations are not meant to have a voice in who represents our country. Corporations do not get a vote yet they are allowed to donate money to political candidates in what everyone acknowledges as an attempt to get favors in return. Corporations primary goal is to generate profit. They will not 'invest'(e.g. donate) more money than they expect to receive in return.

Even more troubling is that it seems corporations account for the majority of political contributions! Obviously this boils down to the same fundamental problem we have with term limits. The beneficiaries of this system are the politicians and the politicians are the only ones in the position to regulate it. So even though the public would benefit from less corporate influence on the government it will almost surely never happen because politicians of all sides benefit. It will remain a non-issue until there is IMMENSE pressure from voters to clean up the act.

It's my position that we should make all corporate contributions illegal. Can anyone make the argument that the public benefits from corporations being so tightly tied to our politicians? You may be able to find a handful of cases where a company's benefits also benefit the common good but I believe these to be merely coincidental. If every penny that a candidate had to campaign with came from his constituants wouldn't our prosperity take precendence over that of the corporations?

I would love to see this question addressed during the presidential debate this year. I would love to see how they(dems and repubs) would spin that one!

Bitwise

The easiest way to make ALL politicians listen to the common man is to ban ALL campaign contributions from everyone BUT individuals.

__________________
The last time this country mixed politics with religion, people got burned at the stake.

They allow companies to donate, because like you said, that's where they get big chunks of cash to blow.

I too am in favor of limiting donations to just individuals, and limiting the amount to a small number, say $1,000 per candidate per term. Bush and Kerry now have $200 million or so and it's just all going to go for spin work, parties, and makeup. Pretty sad.

It would be great to see them run on like $2 million dollar budgets, knowing that that 2 million came from thousands of different donators.

If corporations are prohibited from giving to campaigns, I bet a large percentage of them would shift the money to bribes and lobbyists anyways.

... but nothing will change, because Congress (the ones who would have to make the changes) is bought and paid for.

Just as they set their own pay raises and any other perks they want. They might give lip service to changes, but in reality they are perfectly happy with the way things are.

__________________
<<Cheer up, the worst is yet to come.>>

Not that I think anyone(including the mod that moved it) will see this down here in the forum that only has 43 posts since this board's inception but why was this moved from the "Personal Political Beliefs" forum?

I think this is a great topic that could get some good discussion going but it's obviously not going to get any traction down here in this forum. Just looking at the other posts in the "Personal Political Beliefs" forum it does not seem like it should have been moved. While it does deal with an aspect of political science I suppose, I think it is valid to have it in the original forum I posted it in.

Will the mod who moved this at least respond? I'm just curious as to why it was moved. Especially considering the content of other posts in the "Personal Political Beliefs" forum. Thanks.

Bitwise

they give.

This includes corporate interests, labor unions and trial lawyers as well.