Contributions are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. Federal Election Law requires us to report the name, address, occupation, and employer for contributions aggregating in excess of $200 in an election cycle. The maximum an individual may contribute is $2,300 for the primary election and an additional $2,300 for the general election. Couples may contribute $4,600 for the primary and general elections, respectively. Federal PACs may contribute $5,000 for each election. Contributions from corporations, labor unions, federal government contractors, national banks, and foreign nationals without permanent residency status are prohibited.

 

I thought a thread to discuss campaign finances would be interesting in its own right.

PACs annoy me. I'll share why later.

 

I've only donated once...probably won't again.

PACs annoy me. I'll share why later.

 

I like voluntarily joined PACs. I'll share later as well.

I like voluntarily joined PACs. I'll share later as well.

Yep - there's one of the problems.

 

Back to work, dammit!

 

Yep - there's one of the problems.

 

Back to work, dammit!

 

Agreed, and I was guessing that's where you were going. I have a problem when it isn't voluntary via unions, subscriptions, membership, etc.

I have a problem with allowing self financing with campaigns.

I have a problem with allowing self financing with campaigns.

 

To fix it would you set the limit at $0? A percentage of the overall total spent? Is there some level you are comfortable with?

The maximum amount that any one person can donate to a campaign should be the maximum amount the candidate can donate to a campaign.

 

Romney hasn't raised that much more than McCain for example. Yet he leads the money race, because he's sinking 100 million dollars of his money into the race.

The maximum amount that any one person can donate to a campaign should be the maximum amount the candidate can donate to a campaign.

 

Romney hasn't raised that much more than McCain for example. Yet he leads the money race, because he's sinking 100 million dollars of his money into the race.

 

A rule like that sure would have changed the 2004 election.

The maximum amount that any one person can donate to a campaign should be the maximum amount the candidate can donate to a campaign.

 

Romney hasn't raised that much more than McCain for example. Yet he leads the money race, because he's sinking 100 million dollars of his money into the race.

So then the issue always winds up being...what stops a candidate from dumping $20 million or so of his money into some organization that is formed outside his campaign but happens to favor policies he likes?

So then the issue always winds up being...what stops a candidate from dumping $20 million or so of his money into some organization that is formed outside his campaign but happens to favor policies he likes?

I see no problem with that, as long as that organization doesn't spend money to specifically endorse or promote him/her or attack other candidates.

 

I see no problem with that, as long as that organization doesn't spend money to specifically endorse or promote him/her or attack other candidates.

 

Impossible. If I produce a pro ANWR drilling commercial and play it in a district that a candidate is against it, it would promote that candidate. Even if it does not specifically mentioned the cadidate by name.

Impossible. If I produce a pro ANWR drilling commercial and play it in a district that a candidate is against it, it would promote that candidate. Even if it does not specifically mentioned the cadidate by name.

I disagree. I think that would be fine.

 

Ads don't win elections, boots on the ground do.

 

So much of that money is needed for staffing the crew needed to get you elected. That's where the difference would come in.

Ron Paul is trying to raise $12 million this quarter

The maximum amount that any one person can donate to a campaign should be the maximum amount the candidate can donate to a campaign.

 

Romney hasn't raised that much more than McCain for example. Yet he leads the money race, because he's sinking 100 million dollars of his money into the race.

 

I have been thinking long and hard about this one... I almost would rather see a candidate spending his own money, versus other people's money, and here is why. Influence. People expect things for their money. If I go out and bundle a million dollars for a candidate, I am going to expect some favor. Don't tell me it doesn't happen, because we all know it does. If a person goes out and spends $20 million of his own money, who does he owe influence to? No one. I have mixed feelings on it, but I hate the current system we have, so that is no surprise.

If there was an easy answer, it would have already been done. As much as I like 2k5's answer, the equal and opposite problem, and there always is, becomes only rich people have a chance and, why spend $20 mil on a job that pays $125,000? Perhaps they would be looknig to make some of that back? So we try and find the compromise half way, and it probably isn't in finding the perfect plan, but rather finding the least evil of plans.

I have been thinking long and hard about this one... I almost would rather see a candidate spending his own money, versus other people's money, and here is why. Influence. People expect things for their money. If I go out and bundle a million dollars for a candidate, I am going to expect some favor. Don't tell me it doesn't happen, because we all know it does. If a person goes out and spends $20 million of his own money, who does he owe influence to? No one. I have mixed feelings on it, but I hate the current system we have, so that is no surprise.

Except by doing this you are creating a "ruling class." Only the people who can afford to be in government, run the government and we're stuck choosing which money gets protected by voting for the rich guy we like best.

Except by doing this you are creating a "ruling class." Only the people who can afford to be in government, run the government and we're stuck choosing which money gets protected by voting for the rich guy we like best.

It's what we're doing now, whether you want to admit that or not.

 

The little people don't mean s*** in a campaign anymore.

 

Yeah, but if you're going to reform the campaign system, why reform it so the less wealthy mean even less than before?

That's the hardest part of all this. There's not a good way (as the system exitsts now) to make the little people count.

 

 

Do we know how much money has been contributed by MoveOn to each of the Democratic Candidates ?

My guess is none.

Do we know how much money has been contributed by MoveOn to each of the Democratic Candidates ?

 

 

My guess is none.

I would say the same because that's not how they do their bidding.