Skip to main content

Today's Poll: Should there be a limit on how much money people can donate to political candidates?

By Howard B. Owens
Ed Hartgrove

Actually, the 'limit' should be, not on how much people can donate, but on how much a candidate (or party) can spend. I guess that's one of the side effects of living in a free (yet, capitalistic) society.

Oct 2, 2013, 12:35pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

There should be NO limits on how much a person wants to spend of their own money. You earn your money, you should be able to spend how much and to where you wish.

Oct 2, 2013, 3:34pm Permalink
david spaulding

tough question, I think it has a lot to do with what a human being's definition of what "people" is........if corporations and sovereign nations are people, I would reply with a YES, if "people" are human beings , then I agree with jeff and a person should be able to spend their money any way they please......

Oct 2, 2013, 4:44pm Permalink
Bob Harker

Jeff, I agree with the premise of your statement, but have to disagree in the practical application in the case of election spending. That is exactly why we are stuck with a bunch of "fat cats" in D.C. and Albany that are completely, 100% out of touch with everyday folks like you and I.

Oct 2, 2013, 6:56pm Permalink
John Woodworth JR

I say why stop at limiting donations. Just because, one is rich does not mean they are smarter or better equipped to run a nation. Let's get rid of all the "Fat Cats" and replace with qualified common folk. Let's make a law that, you can only be from the Middle Class down to serve in a governmental office. If, you make more than 500k a year or are a millionaire you are not eligble to run for office. At least a commoner would not allow his fellow man to work without pay, nor be treated differently by requiring them to follow a law and not themself.

Once again Andrew Cuomo is up to his tricks. Once again violating your 2ND Amendment Rights. How do you protect any of your rights if, you cannot defend them. All in the illusion of public safety. I have to agree to a thing I heard today, Assault Weapon is a political term.

Oct 4, 2013, 12:27am Permalink
Jeff Allen

Stunning poll results that so many would actually support the federal government further limiting how much money a citizen can spend of their own money.

Oct 3, 2013, 5:23am Permalink
John Woodworth JR

Why is it so, stunning? What have we seen in the past three plus decades? The government has become more increasingly corrupted by corporations’ donations. Not to mention the money donated is used primarily for smear aids rather than delivering information how a candidate is going to clean up the country. It is all double talk. Look at Obama who has criticized Bush for raising the debt ceiling, putting us in further debt, taking military action on other countries and yet he has done so. Money donations have done nothing but, cause a more corrupted government.

This is not about telling people how they can spend their money. This is about creating a solution to remove corruption out of our government. Money talks and BS walks. Money and greed go side by side for those who desire power. Tell me Jeff how has political donations helped us positively? So far, I see a government that, keeps giving themselves a golden parachute, taking from our social services without putting anything in, constantly smearing and fighting one another with no real concerns how the American People are affected, etc…. Like Obamacare, instead of just delaying it Obama is refusing to negotiate. Obama is our President and should set an example of how good his ACA by being the first to sign up.

Oct 3, 2013, 7:48pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

The solution is total and absolute transparency. Accept as much as you can from whomever you can, but it ALL has to be stated in black and white for everyone to see. No more tax-exempt 501 and 527 corporations for political purposes to hide in. Any organization (PAC) must be totally transparent as well about where the money comes from. No political donations should be tax exempt. I still really love the idea of having candidates and incumbents wear suits like NASCAR drivers that list all their sponsors.

If you want to control something, limit access to elected office holders by lobbyists. Even though it is an infringement on a constitutional right, it's become such a corrupt revolving door system, that I would support far more stringent limitations. Can't make a cake without breaking an egg or two.

Oct 4, 2013, 6:53am Permalink
Dave Olsen

OK, John. I was also reading an article talking about the SEC requiring public corporations to inform their stockholders when they donate to political groups and candidates. I don't know if unions are required to inform their members if they donate as well? You may have better insight on that. I believe both corps and unions should inform the members of these things, but not necessarily forced by law. The onus and responsibility of transparency should be on the candidates. After all if you can't trust them to be truthful, then why would you want them in office? A voter overlooking that i cannot understand.

edit: The article I read supported requiring corporations to inform stockholders, apparently they don't as of now.

Oct 4, 2013, 8:04am Permalink
John Roach

Unions donate and are tax exempt. Some are good at letting membership know who they donate to, some are not. But no matter if it is a union or some non profit, tax exempt corporation, business, or organization, they should not be allowed to donate to political candidates or parties.

Oct 4, 2013, 8:38am Permalink
Debbie Pugliese

Mr. Roach,

If I am not mistaken I believe unions are required to have full written disclosure.

Why shouldnt the working class citizens of this country have a voice? Why should those owning and running the corporations and conglomerates (that have of late been bordering on monopolies) have all the power? This country is already pretty much an oligarchy as it is.

Oct 4, 2013, 8:52am Permalink
John Roach

Debbie,
Not sure if "private" unions have full disclosure, but public unions do not. As a member, it was always very hard to find who they were donating to.

I did not mention working class citizens, or any other individual citizen. I just personally don't think that groups who do not have to pay taxes should be allowed to donate and try to buy influence.

Oct 4, 2013, 9:01am Permalink
Debbie Pugliese

John,

Yeah I am really not sure on disclosure either.

I agree with your statement about tax exempts and donating....but as long as the Chamber of Commerce can do so, the Unions must be allowed to also.

Oct 4, 2013, 12:08pm Permalink

Authentically Local