Here's my idea:

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Campaign contributions should be limited to the candidate's district or state. As in, someone running for the House can only collect donations from people who live in their district, and not anyone in the world. Senators can only get money from people in their state. And the Party as a whole must dole out campaign money equally between all candidates.

This would prevent other states from unfairly influencing elections that aren't any of their business and it would limit the power of PACs and lobbyists. We the People are supposed to be electing our own representatives in Congress, not having our elections influenced by fat cats who don't even live there.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Sure, you only draw money from the district you represent

How about the National arm of your party spending money on your behalf ?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Campaign contributions should be limited to the candidate's district or state. As in, someone running for the House can only collect donations from people who live in their district, and not anyone in the world. Senators can only get money from people in their state. And the Party as a whole must dole out campaign money equally between all candidates.

This would prevent other states from unfairly influencing elections that aren't any of their business and it would limit the power of PACs and lobbyists. We the People are supposed to be electing our own representatives in Congress, not having our elections influenced by fat cats who don't even live there.
So the issue I would have with this is that it limits free speech to your congressional district.

Pelosi wields more control than just San Francisco, you know what I mean?
 

glhs837

Power with Control
So the issue I would have with this is that it limits free speech to your congressional district.

Pelosi wields more control than just San Francisco, you know what I mean?

I'm not sure I'm onboard with money = speech. And a lot of that control comes with being there for decades.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
M y idea I have mentioned here before is no war chests when the election is over the candidate who won must turn back all monies not used to the IRS./

It is BS that politicians are allowed to give their war chest money to others running in other states., or that an incumbent start out with a million dollars while the opponent has to go out and seek that money/.

The incumbent already has perks without sitting on a million dollars from a previous campaign.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
So the issue I would have with this is that it limits free speech to your congressional district.

Pelosi wields more control than just San Francisco, you know what I mean?
Let us not forget what elected officials are actually supposed to be doing, and that is representing their district or state in government.

Not representing people in other states and districts; not doing the will of lobbyists and PACs.

Example, Steny Hoyer was sent to be the voice of the residents of MD-5. That is his job and only purpose in government.

He is not there to be a "Democrat" or suck up to New York and California, nor is he there to kiss Nancy Pelosi's ass; he is there to represent us in SoMD. The end. And therefore his campaign contributions should be limited to the people he is supposed to be representing, and he shouldn't take money from anyone else.

Because why would they give to him in the first place? So they can influence an election that is not supposed to have anything to do with them.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
someone running for the House can only collect donations from people who live in their district,
I would first like to see that a candidate for the House must LIVE in the district they seek to serve before getting into the money discussion.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Let us not forget what elected officials are actually supposed to be doing, and that is representing their district or state in government.

Not representing people in other states and districts; not doing the will of lobbyists and PACs.

Example, Steny Hoyer was sent to be the voice of the residents of MD-5. That is his job and only purpose in government.

He is not there to be a "Democrat" or suck up to New York and California, nor is he there to kiss Nancy Pelosi's ass; he is there to represent us in SoMD. The end. And therefore his campaign contributions should be limited to the people he is supposed to be representing, and he shouldn't take money from anyone else.

Because why would they give to him in the first place? So they can influence an election that is not supposed to have anything to do with them.
What if they live in multiple places? What if they work in a different district than they live? What if they're moving to a district but they are not yet eligible to vote there?

Our first amendment rights are applicable everywhere, not just at home.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I would first like to see that a candidate for the House must LIVE in the district they seek to serve before getting into the money discussion.
I would like some kind of verification the voters are who they say they are and are citizens of the district, too.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I would like some kind of verification the voters are who they say they are and are citizens of the district, too.

Why? Who cares, if everybody can buy any politician they want to? Why not let them vote for that politician as well? By limiting them to voting only in their district, aren't you taking away their free speech?

Wasn't it you who said:

Our first amendment rights are applicable everywhere, not just at home.
?
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Let us not forget what elected officials are actually supposed to be doing, and that is representing their district or state in government.

Not representing people in other states and districts; not doing the will of lobbyists and PACs.

Example, Steny Hoyer was sent to be the voice of the residents of MD-5. That is his job and only purpose in government.

He is not there to be a "Democrat" or suck up to New York and California, nor is he there to kiss Nancy Pelosi's ass; he is there to represent us in SoMD. The end. And therefore his campaign contributions should be limited to the people he is supposed to be representing, and he shouldn't take money from anyone else.

Because why would they give to him in the first place? So they can influence an election that is not supposed to have anything to do with them.

Steny doesn't need outside money.
In fact he gives some of his war chest to other Democrats in other states that are running.
That's why I say no more war chests.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Why? Who cares, if everybody can buy any politician they want to? Why not let them vote for that politician as well? By limiting them to voting only in their district, aren't you taking away their free speech?

Wasn't it you who said:



?
Voting is the actual choosing of the representative, senator, etc. Donating to a campaign merely allows the candidate for office to share their ideas with more folks. No one controls a voter's vote except the voter.

So, in my humble opinion, voting and donating are not even close.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
No one controls a voter's vote except the voter.
Not true. The media is extremely powerful and people are swayed by advertising and other media manipulation. Why do you think those PACs run so many TV commercials and go on all the talk shows? Why do you think "news" reporters choose a side and promote it ceaselessly? Why do you think McDonald's leads in fast food sales and companies pay social media influencers millions of dollars to wear a particular mascara?

Our elected officials should be beholden to us, the voters, not outside interests. And believe it - when a politician takes money from someone, he's going to be paying that back one way or another.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Our elected officials should be beholden to us, the voters, not outside interests. And believe it - when a politician takes money from someone, he's going to be paying that back one way or another.
And as everyone recognizes this as indefatigably true - heck, movies and TV have repeatedly confirmed this as a part of American culture, that if you do THIS you will/won't get this money - we don't seem to be bothered by it. We don't seem to be bothered by the fact that powerful moneyed interests make donations to INFLUENCE bills passed, when they should JUST be influenced by their constituents.

Now I DO get why an industry WITHIN a state might want to influence an election - their interests are also at stake. I still am generally of the opinion I first read Larry express - "if it can't vote, it can't donate".
 
Top