Money (debate)

K well we all know about the debate craze and i've been meaning to put this one out there for a while. i really like logos385 debate rules so i'm giving him 90% of the post and stealing his format :P (seriously good format it's been working well i think.)
Do not downrate or uprate anyone else's posts: let their words speak for themselves.

If you see a post at any rating other than +1, as long as that post is not spam or overly offensive (or a TOS violation), up or downrate it so it reaches a +1 equilibrium. We have enough sensible people on here that we should be able to keep an entire conversation at "+1" so we can have a legitimate discussion that others can follow.

Make sensible posts, and back up your opinions with facts (be able to source facts upon request)

Personal attacks are not arguments

Memes are not arguments
Money donations and campaign finances have gone hand in hand for years now. super pacs are wildly powerful and lobbying is the norm in washington. some feel that there is a need for change in this system as there is a conflict of interests between the companies reasons for donating and what the people of the US actually want and need. others claim that donating money is a form of free speech and if a company wants to declare support for a candidate and donate to them then they have that right. (in essence this kind of makes the companies people as the constitution is being extended to them. though in a sense it is simply them saying they are utilizing their company to make a political statement. however keep in mind though these companies are made up of more than just the owner and also have a lot more money than any one person could hope to donate on their own. it's up to you on this idea but consider both sides before deciding. companies using money as free speech has major implications on both ends)
so the question is this, should there be a set limit on spending and donations they can receive in order to level the playing field to all candidates rather have more attention focused on those with the most money? or is this really a free speech issue and companies should be allowed to continue these massive donations to the most popular candidates?
What do you think people!?

You might be interested


Reply Attach
  • 1

    I will uprate to get this to the front page.

    My thought on this is as this. I personally don't see corporations the same as a person and don't agree with superpacs and that they can donate as they do. However me being the person that I am I see it this way. When a person buys a share of stock of a corporation they are saying they agree with that company and are part of that company. They want to make money. If they people investing are okay with the company they "partially own" donating money then why should I care? Yes it hurts the democratic beliefs that the US believes but it also shows that Americans care more about profit than about almost anything else. Saying that I say let it go but maybe make a few rules guarding this situation as the corporation is acting in the best situation for its stockholders and to maximize their profits with theirs... I still hate this but it is as it is and You cant stop a private business from donating so what will make you stop a public company from donating

    I don't think you can stop private businesses from donating either, but there should still be caps imposed. It's also only fair that these donations be made public as well. This was the problem with citizens united, the philosophy that money=speech and can be anonymous/unlimited. For the sake of argument, lets say that as a voter, the environment and green energy matter to you. Would you vote for a candidate who you knew was getting his pockets lined by Exxon or BP? Probably not. Hence why these donations shouldn't be anonymous. You don't know where SuperPac money is coming from.
    - CrazyJay January 31, 2013, 4:59 pm
    I completely agree.
    - buddyfoeva January 31, 2013, 8:25 pm
  • 1

    Before the citizens united ruling, there were donation caps on individuals. Chances are if you rose the most money in a political campaign, it was a somewhat accurate reflection of your popularity.

    While I don't like the idea of rich people and corporations being able to spend anonymous and unlimited funds on political campaigns, I don't think it made a significant difference in the election. Mitt Romney's campaign outspent Obama, yet he still lost. That said, I don't believe corporations are people, nor do I believe money = freedom of speech. One thing I find amusing is that billionaires like Sheldon Adelson bitch about high taxes, then waste a few millions of dollars on both Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. Hard to make a case about being taxed too much when you have the money to waste on their campaigns, huh? If you ask me, corporate lobbying in the congress is a bigger problem.

    Also the US tends to be more hyper partisan than my home (Canada) Most people won't vote on issues in the US, roughly 40% will vote democrat every time and 40% will vote republican, regardless of the ads they see, debates they watch, etc.

    While we're on the topic of Canada, our elections like many other countries are publicly funded. No need for corporate money to campaign. Even though individual and corporate donations are legal (within reason). Our election period is lot shorter, hence it costs much less. This also keeps the nasty political ads off the TV in the months prior to the election date.

    UK elections are even better. They have no political TV adds, and only last a couple of weeks.

  • 1

    It doesn't matter either way to me. Seems like it'd be easy to get around it though. More importantly, I think we should limit how much the president can spend once he's in office >:l

  • -4

    What you have to remember is that republicans do get corporation support. There's no doubt in that, but you also have to realize that democrats get union support and a lot of government worker support (since dems are for bigger and more government). What's funny is the media is focusing a lot on corporations but not so much on the unions.

    Could it be the media has a democratic bias?

    Now if you're saying all non personal money being outlawed is one thing and I support it. Eliminating corporation contributions , while allowing union contributions is totally different and I do not support that.

    Unions do not have the same financial/lobbying power that corporations wield. Please leave false equivalencies out of the debate.

    Since most media is profit driven and corporate owned in the US, your assertion that the media has a democratic bias is a stretch. (there are many networks that lean towards republicans as well. If you're only talking about MSNBC, of course it looks like they only focous on Corporations.) Or perhaps this is because corporations have more influence than unions. (Going back to my first sentence.)

    Your comment about democrats wanting bigger government is also false, as Obama has decreased the size of gov't and the amount of gov't jobs since his election. It's also worth mentioning that Reagan, Bush Senior and Bush junior outspent both Clinton and Obama during their presidencies.
    - CrazyJay January 29, 2013, 9:24 am
    Wow, CrazyJay, what flavor of Koolaid do you drink?

    Look at statistics for truth not what people tell you.
    - iceman0305 January 29, 2013, 9:48 am
    You know these statistics don't help your case right? The top 5 donors are all corporate and all 100-97% republican *facepalm* Most of whom outspend the national teachers union by 2:1 or higher. That labour section you posted? Still lower than the top 5 previously mentioned. Using the source you gave me, I found that financial interest groups (amoung several others) contribute far more than labour. Labour is 8th out of 13. Most labour money also goes to "Outside spending groups" rather than either party.

    Bottom line: Check your own sources before being condescending. Selective reading only works so well
    - CrazyJay January 29, 2013, 9:57 am
    Hilarious, I see you don't look deeper into the statistics. Yes the top 5 donors are corporations but they're not 100% republican. Check out the number of unions that contribute to Democrats. Condescending idiot, huh? Also, most corporations don't contribute 100% republican, they're split, meanwhile unions are almost always 90%+ or more democratic.

    Also, let me point out that I said eliminating all non-private contributions would be fine I support that. So you want to eliminate corporate contributions but keep union contributions? What a retard.

    Also why do you care Canadian? Don't concern yourself with American politics if you have no horse in the race.
    - iceman0305 January 29, 2013, 10:22 am
    Unions will be the death of America. Look at Detroit and please, please, please blame that on republicans.

    I'm not even going to talk to you about your lies about Obama shrinking the government.
    - iceman0305 January 29, 2013, 10:23 am
    I wasn't aware that being Canadian forbade me from having an opinion. What your country does effects us one way or another. My point to you was that equating unions to corporations was bullshit because they have more money. Far more. Regardless of who they contribute too. But I was referring to the first link you posted when I stated the top 5 were republican.

    Where did I state that I wanted to maintain union contributions? Don't put words in my mouth. If we eliminate corporate contributions, unions wouldn't need to compete, hence you could do away with both.

    If you want to debate, fine. But perhaps you should ask the right questions before you resort to name calling and personal attacks.
    - CrazyJay January 29, 2013, 10:31 am
    Your article seems to have nothing to do with anything.

    As for Obama spending, They aren't lies. They're spending stats that anyone can find. I'll use forbes, since your use of the daily mail (a British tabloid, so Brits can have an opinion but Canucks can't?) suggests you like using conservative sources to argue:
    That said, I'm done. You've pretty much ruined this debate post for me. I'd rather argue with someone who has a point. Here I was thinking no one could top Johnecash in the bullshit department.
    - CrazyJay January 29, 2013, 10:44 am
    LOL!!!! Another hilarious post, you called me idiot first.

    CrazyJay corporations weren't allowed to contribute to political campaigns till 2010.

    Meanwhile unions have been contributing to political campaigns since at least 1968.

    "Not too many years ago Leo Troy, a distinguished professor of economics at Reuters University in New Jersey, gave testimony to a Congressional Committee outlining how unions spend about $500 million in dues dollars on politics each election cycle."

    By the way, here's a link that more elucidates my point. Top 3 all time donors are democratic.

    Don't be a hater baby!

    Why can't we be friends, why can't we be friends, why can't we be friends, why can't we be friends
    - iceman0305 January 29, 2013, 10:46 am
    That doesn't include Superpacs. Actblue is greatly outspent by restore our future and American crossroads. While Liberals have Superpacs too, they still have less.

    You also neglected to mention that there have been donation caps on both until recently. Corporations were still allowed to contribute before citizens united, they just weren't allowed to give unlimited funds anonymously.

    Also, I'm not your friend, guy.
    - CrazyJay January 29, 2013, 10:54 am
    Ok ice enough, no downrating each other, theres rules to this post. keep the name calling out of it.
    - 24paperwings January 29, 2013, 11:11 am
    i know he started it with the koolaid remark but no attacks please? also don't know whats going on with the points but i'm taking a look into it
    - 24paperwings January 29, 2013, 11:12 am
    I tried, man. Only have so much patience for trolls/cheaters.
    - CrazyJay January 29, 2013, 11:22 am
    i know dude. he had potential to be a fun person to debate with. got my hopes up i guess lol
    - 24paperwings January 29, 2013, 11:28 am
    i believe they would eliminate both. there's no need for either if they have limits set on them.

    And sorry but unions and cooperation's are in no way on even levels when it comes to funding and donations. the reasons that the cooperation's are the main focus is because they continue to make larger and larger donations. and if we are honest with ourselves we also know that unions are full of ordinary people who make themselves better able to get work and get decent enough wages in blue collar jobs, public health, and other such industries that they can have a decent living. these form in response to big cooperation's over extending their rights and suppressing people into poverty to gain more money. it's an amazing workers protection mechanism that has allowed my own family to actually be able to afford living in a decent neighborhood and is helping me to get a good education. take a look at workers rights in the early industrial revolution. without unions fighting the way we did this would very likely be where we would be at today, it's why labor is so cheap else where. unless thats what we want here then unions are without a doubt needed in america.

    the bias is not nearly as skewed democratically as you think. but the country is without a doubt leanings more along democratic line of thought now days. maybe you're seeing that reflected in the media? like you said cooperation's are definitely getting into the media much more often these days but for pretty obvious reasons. they are being shown as corrupt because of corruption, they are shown as liars because they lie, and they are demonized by people because they do more harm than good. unions don't make the media because their isn't nearly as much corruption and scandals for the simple reason that if they fuck anyone over they tend to have to answer to the customer directly. (not to say it doesn't happen, there are exceptions obviously) plus since unions help them get more money people tend to think of them as a means of support rather than something that suppresses them.

    but like i said points null, i support getting rid of both just think that attempting to say unions are just as bad isn't a fair comparison. it's actually flat out wrong considering our historical relationship of workers to cooperation's.
    - 24paperwings January 29, 2013, 11:38 am
    If you were saying unions are good I agree, well they were. The gains in workers rights during the 1920s and 1950s is impressive. However, like all things without a good counterweight, the pendulum has swung way too far in favor of the unions.

    If unions are good for the country, why has the right to work states grown so much faster than the northern (heavily unionized) states? Why are more states trying to become right to work?

    I work in the south and I have many co-workers that are from states like Penn, NY, Mich, etc. They moved to the south because that's where the jobs are.

    Before you speak good or bad about unions, do your research on GM, Ford, US Steel, in the 50s-70s. Look at the most heavily unionized states and areas and see what their growth rate is. Don't give me a specific and argue to the general.
    - iceman0305 January 29, 2013, 12:06 pm
    That hurts CrazyJay. I've always wanted a liberal Canadian as a friend.
    - iceman0305 January 29, 2013, 12:08 pm
    Oh, what is with the attack 24paperwings? Typical liberal double standard.

    By the way, I'm sure you two are college students probably on government welfare of some type (student loans) who listen without thought to your professors (professors are usually government employees) As soon as you have paying jobs and see your paychecks continue to shrink because of taxes that are wasted you might see the light. Or you might not, since welfare programs are no longer a safety net but a hammock.

    I got money in the bank, shorty what you drank?
    - iceman0305 January 29, 2013, 12:19 pm
    24paperweight and CrazyJay, continue with the mindset of unions are good, government is good, etc. That's fine.

    Remember I want skim milk in my vanilla latte.
    - iceman0305 January 29, 2013, 12:21 pm
    ... how is this an attack?
    "i know dude. he had potential to be a fun person to debate with. got my hopes up i guess lol"
    when you resort to childish name calling respect is lost. you've disrespected him and he responded, i gave you both warnings and told you to each back off.
    for your information i am a student using student loans and i'm proud of it. i hate paying taxes as much as the next guy but i would invite a tax increase as i know that we need to generate more money for the country and thats an easy solution.
    welfare is widely used because of the recession and like their wealthier counterparts who take advantage of the tax breaks they are given some will indeed take advantage of the system and go on welfare. but while some people are indeed using it as a hammock not all are, so why punish the many for the actions of a few when it comes to not having people in our country starve. we are very good about forgetting all the good it can do for people and pretending that its all negative. people are struggling and cutting welfare is not going to help anyone at this point. these people have the motivation to work but no jobs to go to or ones that don't pay enough.

    like i said i've not attacked you, just simply stated you made the first insult and agreed talking to trolls/cheaters can be frustrating. you had potential to be fun to debate with but the insults are getting in the way of other wise well presented arguments (though they defiantly differ from my own). if you weren't acting like an ass i wouldn't have agreed with him nor asked you to refrain from insults. you did however act like an ass causing my response.
    - 24paperwings January 29, 2013, 1:10 pm
    The first insult? Do you know what "drinking the Kool-aid" means? It only suggests going with the crowd. It's far from an insult. Now "condescending idiot" is another thing entirely.

    I had a lot of friends that were liberal in college (have a MS in comp sci) until they were actually working and having to pay taxes.

    Unfortunately, you're not really in a position to support paying more taxes since your earnings aren't taxed. If you work at all, I'm sure you make below the threshold and pay nothing in federal taxes. I on the other hand am in the highest tax bracket or one step below.

    So please support paying higher taxes when you're actually paying them.

    By the way 24, check this article out.

    So let me think they want big gov, big government spending to support themselves. Hmm, what's the best way to do that? Teach liberal ideology at the universities. Wow, what a great idea.
    - iceman0305 January 29, 2013, 1:26 pm
    then you proceeded to post this^
    ok go ahead, continue with the mindset that cooperations are good, that moneys is free speech, etc.
    thats fine

    Remember those wars, tax cuts, over spending, and the big economic collapse a few years back? yea, the government sure wasn't spending a lot until obama got into office now where they?
    - 24paperwings January 29, 2013, 1:27 pm

    What's with the name change??
    - SuDoku January 29, 2013, 1:43 pm
    I apologize about the vanilla latte comment, it was puerile.

    I never said I supported the wars or big banks and I'm not as republican as you think. I think George W was a disaster along with the invasion of Iraq and especially Afghanistan. I also believe wall street is a collection of scoundrels.

    Look up Fredric Bastiat The Law for some interesting reading 24.

    And for God's sake, don't listen to me 24, don't listen to your professors, read as much as you can and make your decisions.

    I don't know Johnecash, but if you think I'm him, he must be an alright guy. LOL, just kidding.

    One more thing, and I reiterate, getting rid of all non-personal contributions are fine and I agree with that.

    I salute both 24paperwings and CrazyJay. I hope the best for you guys.
    - iceman0305 January 29, 2013, 2:13 pm
    Oh come on. You could have at least made the appropriate South Park joke in response. "I'm not your guy, buddy!"
    - CrazyJay January 29, 2013, 2:42 pm
    this book sounds like bull, i'll try to take a look at it but the dude wrote it in the 1800's not sure if applies today. besides we a democratic socialist state so we do incorporate the good ideas into our government already. though i but glad to see you apologize! back to debates! huzzah!
    - 24paperwings January 29, 2013, 2:48 pm
    Huh, really? I've only ever come across one person who uses 'liberal' as a derogatory term... Same as you... Weird...
    Cute that you've had a little 'exchange' since I called you out... Bless your face.
    - SuDoku January 30, 2013, 1:05 pm
    Mission control: Bravo leader? i repeat Bravo leader, please respond to hail, this is Mission control what your status? over.
    Bravo leader: Uhhh mission control?Yea this is Bravo leader, we have confirmation of Trolling. how would you like us to proceed?
    Mission control: Confirmation received and relaying
    Mission control: Mission control to Op leader. Bravo leader has confirmed Reports of trolling and is awaiting orders. how should we proceed. over.
    Op Leader: Order Delta strike butthurt trollolol, order confirmation Bitchtits maggee Batman! Johnecash epicfail!
    Mission Control: Order confirmation recognized. Delta strike butthurt trollolol authorized. Assplow-to-facepalm missile enroute. over.
    Mission control: Mission control to Delta leader, Orders confirmed. Sit back and enjoy the shitshow Delta leader, good work boys! over.
    Delta leader: Loud and clear MC, pulling up lawn chair and ordering taco's to enjoy the ensuing shit-storm. Over and out.

    (spam bot confirms trolling! this shall be fun!)
    - 24paperwings January 31, 2013, 12:21 pm
    Can't reply to your comment on that comment! Haaha!
    Finally, did we get an ip check as well?
    - SuDoku January 31, 2013, 12:28 pm
    Lawl can't respond to yours either! xD
    not sure on the Ip but at the very least spam bots back and has fixed most of the points for the post. i really don't care about the responses so long as this isn't getting shoved down by one user with who has delusions that people actually agree with all of his insane stances. (i think gun control might be the only one he actually has a chance to debate reasonably on)
    at this point i've lost interest in whether he stays or not. if he stays on it just means i get to play mind games and get a bunch of new OC for the site and if not then we now don't have to deal with him trying to spam opposing opinions so no one else can see them. it's either that or he's has a grudge because i won't agree with the idiotic things he says. he seems to think i actually give a shit about him messing with my posts lol
    - 24paperwings January 31, 2013, 12:50 pm
Related Posts