XXIX Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
3) Limit political donations to an amount almost anyone can make - $100. That would put the billionaire and the waitress on a level playing field.

I would rather ban donations altogether, with possibly the exemption of a 'fund' controlled by the electoral office, where anyone still feeling altruistic even if they can't bribe for policy, however the electoral office decdes how it splits the money between candidates, not the donor. The politicians don't even know who donated the money. Limiting donations doesn't work.
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
Then you must believe in a Plutocracy, or rule by the wealthy.
rubbish

If you ban all political donations, then only the wealthy would be able to finance their own campaigns.
more rubbish

Elections should be funded by govt. With every candidate to receive the same amount in funds, and every candidate to receive access to the same level of govt owned media for advertising. Not sure it applies to the US as they don't have govt. owened media ... unless you include Fox, which is in Trumps pocket. We don't need a lot of advertising anyway .. it's not like they advertise policies anyway, all the advertise is slogans and how bad the other party are. Anyone who wants to know policies of a party can google it.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
rubbish


more rubbish

Elections should be funded by govt. With every candidate to receive the same amount in funds, and every candidate to receive access to the same level of govt owned media for advertising. Not sure it applies to the US as they don't have govt. owened media ... unless you include Fox, which is in Trumps pocket. We don't need a lot of advertising anyway .. it's not like they advertise policies anyway, all the advertise is slogans and how bad the other party are. Anyone who wants to know policies of a party can google it.

Other than the fact(according to Harvard Studies of 97 countries) that the largest medias firms are owned by the government, or by private families. And, that certain policies ARE disseminated through these media outlets, then I do agree with the rest. Fox is the blatant mouthpiece for all Conservative/Republican propaganda. It only masquerades as a "fair and balanced" media news network. But even Fox supported Tulsi.


I agree that everyone should have the same level playing field, when entering politics.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
Elections should be funded by govt. With every candidate to receive the same amount in funds, and every candidate to receive access to the same level of govt owned media for advertising. Not sure it applies to the US as they don't have govt. owened media ... unless you include Fox, which is in Trumps pocket. We don't need a lot of advertising anyway .. it's not like they advertise policies anyway, all the advertise is slogans and how bad the other party are. Anyone who wants to know policies of a party can google it.
What about CNN.............. the Clinton News Network


Bitching because the Right has one Network, Fox News, that is to the Right/Conservative.....while ALL the other Networks & most all print media leans solidly to the Left/Liberal-Progressive.

No, the USA will not spread it's ASS CHEEKS & become a Socialist bastion like Australia........"Big Government"..........Where the government is the answer to everything.....Every Human Need........government owned media......government owned utilities.....government owned healthcare........government owned education (propaganda camps).........ETC.....ETC........the government who spends our THEIR money on & for us, & so-so wisely for us, because left on our own, we common people pee-ons don't know what's in our own best interests.....the government knows best.....& what to spend OUR THEIR money on.....
 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
You said,

I would rather ban donations altogether, with possibly the exemption of a 'fund' controlled by the electoral office, where anyone still feeling altruistic even if they can't bribe for policy, however the electoral office decdes how it splits the money between candidates, not the donor. The politicians don't even know who donated the money. Limiting donations doesn't work.
Candidate DO know where their donations come from, and who are making them. These records must be kept, and are easily vetted. If I told Tulsi that I supported her campaign, she could easily check who I was, and how much I donated. There is also a cap on all PRIVATE donations to the candidates. Where candidates use their own personal funds, it is a contribution without limits.

Why? If you ban donations altogether, who do you think would be able to afford multi-million dollar campaigns? Anyone?

more rubbish
Why? Same question as before. Or, is this more defensive blustering?

So, again, if we took away all political donations, who do you think would be running for office? The rich or the poor?
 

Auggie

Active member
Why? If you ban donations altogether, who do you think would be able to afford multi-million dollar campaigns? Anyone?
John Smith said that political campaigns would be funded by public money. Candidates who are nominated would receive an equal amount of funding.
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
Candidate DO know where their donations come from, and who are making them.
I was talking about my suggested alternative to the current system. Under my proposal, donations would go into a pool managed by the electoral office, and candidates would not know who donated what.

I already told you, elections would be wholly funded by the government.
 

DonDeeHippy

Active member
You said,



Candidate DO know where their donations come from, and who are making them. These records must be kept, and are easily vetted. If I told Tulsi that I supported her campaign, she could easily check who I was, and how much I donated. There is also a cap on all PRIVATE donations to the candidates. Where candidates use their own personal funds, it is a contribution without limits.



Why? If you ban donations altogether, who do you think would be able to afford multi-million dollar campaigns? Anyone?



Why? Same question as before. Or, is this more defensive blustering?

So, again, if we took away all political donations, who do you think would be running for office? The rich or the poor?
see not reading what was said and instead making up your own story..... AGAIN Oops
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
see not reading what was said and instead making up your own story..... AGAIN Oops

He said, dumb-dumb,

"I would rather ban donations altogether, with possibly the exemption of a 'fund' controlled by the electoral office,...". And,

"The politicians don't even know who donated the money(lie). Limiting donations doesn't work(why not?)."

He then back-peddles with,

"Elections should be funded by govt(no longer "possibly the exception" anymore). With every candidate to receive the same amount in funds, and every candidate to receive access to the same level of govt owned media for advertising.".

The Federal Election Commission, is an independent regulatory government Agency(under the Executive Branch). Its job is to make sure that parity is kept, and the playing field is level for all the candidates. It makes sure that all federal election/campaign laws are not violated. Other than overseeing and monitoring election campaigns, government agencies should never have any direct monetary input into any campaign. The potential for abuse is obvious.

Our election process is probably one of the last Democratic processes we have left. Whether rich or poor, all votes are equal. Only the people should be allowed to determine who they want to represent them. Good or bad. Only the people should be allowed to support the candidates of their choice, by donating directly to their campaign. Not Government agencies!

I do agree, that all candidates should be allowed the same access to all media outlets to get their message out. I agree that caps should be set on all private and public donations. And, I also think that the media should be held legally libel for all smear-attacks, and false accusations, that they make against any candidate corporate America doesn't like. I personally believe that the media should stay out of all campaigns, period! They can spin any narrative, disseminate half-truths and disinformation, insinuate/infer any wrongdoings, and even make shit sound good enough to eat(Elizabeth Warren). They are experts at deceiving the gullible and ignorant public, just to improve their ratings. People are just too eager to believe, rather than to know!

I read exactly what was written. Your problem is, that you still haven't learned HOW to interpret what is written, objectively. AGAIN!! I guess loyalty, like love, is also blind.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
I was talking about my suggested alternative to the current system. Under my proposal, donations would go into a pool managed by the electoral office, and candidates would not know who donated what.



I already told you, elections would be wholly funded by the government.

When you say "government", I will assume that you mean the FEC. Otherwise, you need to be more specific. What part of the government will WHOLLY fund all elections? The DNC is corrupt enough, in establishing its rules that are constantly changing. But, even it's committees are limited in how much they can fund its OWN candidates. And, you're suggesting that we let a government "independent " agency completely fund all elections? He who controls the funding's, will also control the elections. We ARE talking about a bi-partisan government, funding all party candidates, right? Can't you see any glaring conflicts of interest here?

The current system is the best so far. The problem is NOT in the system, it is in the abuse. And, there is plenty of blame to go around.

Campaigns should not be about money, or where it comes from. Campaigns should be about policies, experience, honesty, intelligence, beliefs, ability, and strength of character. Two senile old men with late onset dementia, is the best America can do? Sad!!
 

Auggie

Active member
When you say "government", I will assume that you mean the FEC. Otherwise, you need to be more specific. What part of the government will WHOLLY fund all elections? The DNC is corrupt enough, in establishing its rules that are constantly changing. But, even it's committees are limited in how much they can fund its OWN candidates. And, you're suggesting that we let a government "independent " agency completely fund all elections? He who controls the funding's, will also control the elections. We ARE talking about a bi-partisan government, funding all party candidates, right? Can't you see any glaring conflicts of interest here?

The current system is the best so far. The problem is NOT in the system, it is in the abuse. And, there is plenty of blame to go around.

Campaigns should not be about money, or where it comes from. Campaigns should be about policies, experience, honesty, intelligence, beliefs, ability, and strength of character. Two senile old men with late onset dementia, is the best America can do? Sad!!
Public funding of elections seem to work well in France. It's really not that complicated - an independent commission would be established to enforce those rules.
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
"I would rather ban donations altogether, with possibly the exemption of a 'fund' controlled by the electoral office,...". And,

"The politicians don't even know who donated the money(lie). Limiting donations doesn't work(why not?)."

why leave out the rest of it you idiot. Everyone else understood it. It's only brain dead morons that struggle.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
No, just my proposals.
Well now, lets just look at your proposal.

Section ONE,

What do you mean by "chosen"? If you mean "elected" to office, Art. 1 Sect. 2 of the Constitutions mandates, that members of the House of Representatives are elected by the PEOPLE of the States every 2 years. And, the number of congresspersons per state, depends on the number of congressional districts in each state. Total of 435 representatives.


Section TWO,

The number of Senators per state, and their terms, are mandated by Article 1 Sect. 3 of our Constitution. WHY do we need 6 Senators instead of 2? Their terms are already 6 years. Madison reasoned that a 6 year term for Senators would make the government more stable. 300 Senators wouldn't!!!

Section THREE,

Article 1 Sect. 7 and Sect. 8 states,

"“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. Congress defines the contours of federal power. This requirement of legislative appropriation before public funds are spent is at the foundation of our constitutional order.

Congress clearly has the power to specify, "the objects, amounts, and timing of federal spending, even if there were no Appropriations Clause". If Congress could not limit the Executive Branch(President) from withdrawing funds from the Treasury, then the constitutional grants of power that allows Congress to raise taxes, borrow money(Article 1, Section 9) would be meaningless. And, the Executive Branch could effectively compel taxing and borrowing by spending at will. Do you really want an Authoritarian government, with a megalomaniac in charge of its money?

Also, you couldn't get a two-thirds majority vote in both houses on anything. Effectively giving the Executive Branch complete control over the nation's money. So, you are saying, that the President can tell Congress to give him money, and Congress must say YES SIR! Oh, sorry, they could submit their amendments and suggestions for the President to consider! If he wants to at all. Boy, talk about screwing with the balance of power, and our checks and balances system.

Section FOUR,

Forcing Congress to pass any appropriation bill for the Executive Branch, under the threat of treasury to stop paying their salaries, benefits, and allowances?? Really? This would be a "high misdemeanor' offense, and constitutionally illegal. What if the other two branches also decided to do this? Insane!! Did you even think this through?

Section FIVE,

Don't understand.

Section SIX,

The President already has the right to veto any bill. But congress can also over-ride the President's veto. I guess in you proposal, congress must only appease and mollify the the wishes of the President.

Thank God the framers of the Constitution wanted 3 separate, but equal branches of government. All, with equal powers, and equal checks and balances. Not this Authoritarian, Dictatorial Oligarchy, that would give the biggest crook in history, unlimited access to our nation's wealth.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
why leave out the rest of it you idiot. Everyone else understood it. It's only brain dead morons that struggle.

I am really trying to be civil here John. But if you keep insulting me like this, I will bury you in insults. So grow up, and use your brains instead of your insulting mouth!
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
I am really trying to be civil here John. But if you keep insulting me like this, I will bury you in insults. So grow up, and use your brains instead of your insulting mouth!
stop being an idiot, and I'll stop calling you an idiot. What else do you expect me to call you when you in effect edit my comment than complain about what your version says?
 

Auggie

Active member
The number of Senators per state, and their terms, are mandated by Article 1 Sect. 3 of our Constitution. WHY do we need 6 Senators instead of 2? Their terms are already 6 years. Madison reasoned that a 6 year term for Senators would make the government more stable. 300 Senators wouldn't!!!
Because it allows for more representation in the Senate. America has a population of 300 million now.

"“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. Congress defines the contours of federal power. This requirement of legislative appropriation before public funds are spent is at the foundation of our constitutional order.

Congress clearly has the power to specify, "the objects, amounts, and timing of federal spending, even if there were no Appropriations Clause". If Congress could not limit the Executive Branch(President) from withdrawing funds from the Treasury, then the constitutional grants of power that allows Congress to raise taxes, borrow money(Article 1, Section 9) would be meaningless. And, the Executive Branch could effectively compel taxing and borrowing by spending at will. Do you really want an Authoritarian government, with a megalomaniac in charge of its money?

Also, you couldn't get a two-thirds majority vote in both houses on anything. Effectively giving the Executive Branch complete control over the nation's money. So, you are saying, that the President can tell Congress to give him money, and Congress must say YES SIR! Oh, sorry, they could submit their amendments and suggestions for the President to consider! If he wants to at all. Boy, talk about screwing with the balance of power, and our checks and balances system.
So, in my proposal, Congress still has to approve the Bill with a simple majority - it just can't AMEND the estimates proposed by the President.

Congress should not decide where the money goes - the President, representing a national constituency should decide where the money goes, along with the executive agencies. Congress then decides if it approves or rejects the bill. If Congress wants to amend appropriations, then a supermajority must agree; otherwise Congress can make recommendations to the President. Ultimately, Congress and the President have to compromise because appropriations require the consent of the Congress. They just can't AMEND appropriations, except with a two-thirds majority.

Forcing Congress to pass any appropriation bill for the Executive Branch, under the threat of treasury to stop paying their salaries, benefits, and allowances?? Really? This would be a "high misdemeanor' offense, and constitutionally illegal. What if the other two branches also decided to do this? Insane!! Did you even think this through?
California have implemented this provision in their Constitution. It's designed to disincentivise shutting down the Government, and if you do, then you lose your wages like all the public servants who lose theirs.

Seems to have worked well in California so far.
 
Top