The elections are 100% controlled by money. There is thousands of articles discussing what George Soros does.
They discuss the fact that George Soros is able to put in so much money the competition drops out!
There is a lot of restrictions, many of them created by Democrats trying to stop Republicans when Republicans were the majority. There is also a lot of loopholes. Like opening foundations.
Unfortunately, money is fungible which means someone from New York can pay someone in South Carolina to donate to a local cause.
Try to ban that, and then someone from New York can "hire" someone in South Carolina to "consult" on donating to a local cause. Wink wink.
Honestly the best we can really do is force all ads to give the names of the INDIVIDUAL supplying the money. Not bullshit shell companies.
If every other ad on TV had George Soros' name at the end of it, people would pretty quickly realize they are getting scammed by carpetbaggers.
Someone pointed out it could be anyone approving the message not just Soros. I still think it's better to force someone to say "I am so-and-so and I approve this message" so ultimately there's some name to investigate rather than "Society for Who Knows What Foundation, PO Box Nowhere, USA"
You're right, I was thinking of campaign ads where candidates are required to say "I'm John Smith and I approve this message" but yes it would still be the candidate name not Soros or the actually money behind it.
That leaves a trace though, doesn't it? If Joe Shmoe never donated before or maybe only donated $100 to some rando and then suddenly he's donating $1000+, wouldn't that raise an eyebrow?
This may not be a popular view, but this is not a good path to take.
It's the same as Citizens United and has First amendment issues with regard to who YOU can support with YOUR money.
Counter proposal: no money limits but FULL disclosure with serious penalties for lying about where your money came from and where it went. Forfeit 125% of your peak donations for civil violations and jail for criminal ones, with a high bar of proof for criminal. Criminal would include structuring donations to try and get around the reporting limits. PACs with very large donors have the same compliance rules.
Not only do campaigns have to report, but anyone donating over a certain amount in total has to report. So if Soros or Bloomberg are trying to spend billions to swing an election, they have to own up.
The reporting threshold amount could adjust over time, tied to the top 5% of donors in a class of race (Presidential, National, State-wide and Local). This means appropriate thresholds for a $50,000 race as compared to a $2 billion dollar presidential run.
If Soros or the Soviets gives Biden $5 million and you know about it, and everyone knows about it, something can be done about it. If a certain lobbying sector drops a million and there is favorable legislation under consideration a few months after, we know is compromised because they got bought off.
Make money illegal, and it sneaks in the back door.
I actually was asking this to myself. I don't understand how people who don't even live somewhere can donate money for somebody in a place they have no connection to. The only election that people from anywhere within the US should be able to donate is President
If that's your stance you should include that for house and senate seats. Only people within the district can donate and only people within the state for senate / governor positions. Problem is you'd have people setup corporations within the jurisdiction and funding / running pacs against candidates. It would require citizens united to be overturned. Having one state trying to buy seats in another is a pretty fucked up thing though if we really consider states to be independent from the others.
Here's an idea: teach people to start thinking independently. Make it a virtue. And, stop the bandwagon shit. Liberals are terrified of being ostracized. It dominates their being. That's why they project this fear onto us (childish AND BASELESS name calling, huddling into their safe spaces online). Teach them, it's okay, normal, and desirable to be on the fringe. Their weak kumbaya tribalism is fucking America.
I disagree. I've donated to two non-local candidates thus far, with probably at least 1 other soon. The people in some of these communities may not be able to afford monetary donations.
Besides, Maxine Waters doesn't even LIVE in her own district. Fair's fair.
The elections are 100% controlled by money. There is thousands of articles discussing what George Soros does.
They discuss the fact that George Soros is able to put in so much money the competition drops out!
There is a lot of restrictions, many of them created by Democrats trying to stop Republicans when Republicans were the majority. There is also a lot of loopholes. Like opening foundations.
Unfortunately, money is fungible which means someone from New York can pay someone in South Carolina to donate to a local cause.
Try to ban that, and then someone from New York can "hire" someone in South Carolina to "consult" on donating to a local cause. Wink wink.
Honestly the best we can really do is force all ads to give the names of the INDIVIDUAL supplying the money. Not bullshit shell companies.
If every other ad on TV had George Soros' name at the end of it, people would pretty quickly realize they are getting scammed by carpetbaggers.Someone pointed out it could be anyone approving the message not just Soros. I still think it's better to force someone to say "I am so-and-so and I approve this message" so ultimately there's some name to investigate rather than "Society for Who Knows What Foundation, PO Box Nowhere, USA"
Dinesh DiSouza would like a word with you.
He literally got arrested, charged, and convicted of that very offense.
Given your entire comment, how would that be enforceable?
the same way the woods procedures were enforceable to prevent FISA abuse....oh...they ignored those
You're right, I was thinking of campaign ads where candidates are required to say "I'm John Smith and I approve this message" but yes it would still be the candidate name not Soros or the actually money behind it.
That leaves a trace though, doesn't it? If Joe Shmoe never donated before or maybe only donated $100 to some rando and then suddenly he's donating $1000+, wouldn't that raise an eyebrow?
This may not be a popular view, but this is not a good path to take.
It's the same as Citizens United and has First amendment issues with regard to who YOU can support with YOUR money.
Counter proposal: no money limits but FULL disclosure with serious penalties for lying about where your money came from and where it went. Forfeit 125% of your peak donations for civil violations and jail for criminal ones, with a high bar of proof for criminal. Criminal would include structuring donations to try and get around the reporting limits. PACs with very large donors have the same compliance rules.
Not only do campaigns have to report, but anyone donating over a certain amount in total has to report. So if Soros or Bloomberg are trying to spend billions to swing an election, they have to own up.
The reporting threshold amount could adjust over time, tied to the top 5% of donors in a class of race (Presidential, National, State-wide and Local). This means appropriate thresholds for a $50,000 race as compared to a $2 billion dollar presidential run.
If Soros or the Soviets gives Biden $5 million and you know about it, and everyone knows about it, something can be done about it. If a certain lobbying sector drops a million and there is favorable legislation under consideration a few months after, we know is compromised because they got bought off.
Make money illegal, and it sneaks in the back door.
No foreign money.
Money must be donated by individuals, not businesses, super pacs, or corporations.
Conservatives don't run the banking systems or control the Elite.
We don't have anywhere near the money they do. Not even close.
You know how I know that won’t ever happen?
It makes a lot of sense
Publicly finance campaigns so all candidates get the same amount (within the individual race).
I actually was asking this to myself. I don't understand how people who don't even live somewhere can donate money for somebody in a place they have no connection to. The only election that people from anywhere within the US should be able to donate is President
User name doesn't check out.
I duuno, pede, I like to send $ to Devin Nunez.
I get your point though.
The problem with this idea is that election laws don't apply to Democrats.
If that's your stance you should include that for house and senate seats. Only people within the district can donate and only people within the state for senate / governor positions. Problem is you'd have people setup corporations within the jurisdiction and funding / running pacs against candidates. It would require citizens united to be overturned. Having one state trying to buy seats in another is a pretty fucked up thing though if we really consider states to be independent from the others.
Wouldn’t it be great?
Let’s also include if you run for president of the USA you can only collect from residents of the USA.
Absolutely agree.
Candidate should only be able to collect money from people they will be representing, and nobody else.
Here's an idea: teach people to start thinking independently. Make it a virtue. And, stop the bandwagon shit. Liberals are terrified of being ostracized. It dominates their being. That's why they project this fear onto us (childish AND BASELESS name calling, huddling into their safe spaces online). Teach them, it's okay, normal, and desirable to be on the fringe. Their weak kumbaya tribalism is fucking America.
I disagree. I've donated to two non-local candidates thus far, with probably at least 1 other soon. The people in some of these communities may not be able to afford monetary donations.
Besides, Maxine Waters doesn't even LIVE in her own district. Fair's fair.
That's... actually a brilliant idea!