Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

senate Bill S. 1838

Keeping Super PACs and Candidates From Getting Too Chummy

Argument in favor

Democracy suffers and the needs of ordinary citizens are overlooked when Super PACS — which can receive unlimited contributions — act as an arm of a candidate's campaign.

Vince's Opinion
···
06/02/2016
Campaigns should be more regulated so that anybody who wishes to run for office has just as good a chance to win as someone with a seemingly unlimited amount of money. Public office should not belong only to the rich.
Like (40)
Follow
Share
Leo's Opinion
···
06/01/2016
I would prefer banning SuperPACs but this is a start.
Like (18)
Follow
Share
Joseph's Opinion
···
06/02/2016
Super Pacs, lobbyists, and corporations give large sums of monies to presidential candidates and members of the legislative branch of government and I suspect more recently the judicial branch. The reasons are not noble or idealistic, but rather, they expect a substantial return from their investment. Subsequently, they are purchasing the votes, signatures, and opinions of our elected leaders. I might add, that by accepting these monies, our elected officials are selling our government, our Constitution, and our security to the highest bidder without regard to their constituents. The long one short of it is, that these institutionalized entities are bribing our government officials and this needs to stop.
Like (13)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

Political contributions are a form of free speech. Coordination is already banned between Super PACs and candidates, so this bill would just add duplicate unnecessary complications.

pgshpak's Opinion
···
06/02/2016
The ability to exercise your voice isn't based on how much money you earn, and that's why correlating spending with free speech is erroneous.
Like (10)
Follow
Share
operaman's Opinion
···
06/01/2016
Not concerned with who sleeps with who or who is chummy with big money. This is back door stirring the pot too erase the 1A. Besides, laws are in place keeping candidates from getting chummy with SuperPacs. Shutting down SuperPacs would be against free speech and freedom of the press. Only a Socialist would vote against to suppress.
Like (9)
Follow
Share
Rebino's Opinion
···
06/02/2016
It is the money under their ownership not ours. Besides this is the only way for 3rd party candidates to make it.
Like (2)
Follow
Share
    Campaigns should be more regulated so that anybody who wishes to run for office has just as good a chance to win as someone with a seemingly unlimited amount of money. Public office should not belong only to the rich.
    Like (40)
    Follow
    Share
    The ability to exercise your voice isn't based on how much money you earn, and that's why correlating spending with free speech is erroneous.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    I would prefer banning SuperPACs but this is a start.
    Like (18)
    Follow
    Share
    Super Pacs, lobbyists, and corporations give large sums of monies to presidential candidates and members of the legislative branch of government and I suspect more recently the judicial branch. The reasons are not noble or idealistic, but rather, they expect a substantial return from their investment. Subsequently, they are purchasing the votes, signatures, and opinions of our elected leaders. I might add, that by accepting these monies, our elected officials are selling our government, our Constitution, and our security to the highest bidder without regard to their constituents. The long one short of it is, that these institutionalized entities are bribing our government officials and this needs to stop.
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes, some say this is a "free speech" and should be left alone. Question is, how much free speech do I have with $100 against the $100 million super pac? The political aristocracy needs to be destroyed.
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    Not concerned with who sleeps with who or who is chummy with big money. This is back door stirring the pot too erase the 1A. Besides, laws are in place keeping candidates from getting chummy with SuperPacs. Shutting down SuperPacs would be against free speech and freedom of the press. Only a Socialist would vote against to suppress.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    This is a strong bill that further restricts super PACs
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    Political candidates should be elected based upon public support, not the combined interests of wealthy organizations
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    This is common sense legislation. Both Republicans and Democrats unfairly use superPACs. it's time for the average American citizen to be equal to the rest of American society!
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Unlimited funding for any political candidate by any entity undermines the majority of voters.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    It's unfair to voters when Super PACs, with nearly limitless cash, are allowed to team up with candidates and have a much larger influence on elections than the vast majority of voters.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    I entirely disagree with the proposition that campaign contributions are a form of speech. The cash nexus in politics has been demonstrated to be wholly corrosive to public interests and to private morals, and should be done away with or severely limited. Yet even if contributions were a protected form of speech, that still doesn't mean that it couldn't be regulated by Congress: I'm not allowed to falsely shout fire in a crowded theater with impunity just because it is free speech, nor am I allowed to publicly reveal state secrets because I have a right to free speech. When one person is able to spend millions on their "free speech" that necessarily drowns out and limits the rights of those who can only spend hundreds on their exercise of the right. For this reason, a limit on contributions has always been considered an equalizer of the right to participate in political speech, rather than an impediment...at least until Citizens United.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    It's a step toward returning politics to fiscal sanity.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    We need to get money out of politics but until we do, we need to make politicians represent all of his or her constituency & not just those who have money.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Money in politics is the root cause of many regressive policies that continue to make it difficult for America to progress politically, socially, and economically.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    It is time that "serving the people" isn't synonymous with big money. If u get rich in public service, you're doing it wrong
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    The cabinet hearings have shown the partisanship of these Super Pacs and the influence they have over our elected officials
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Get big money out of politics. This is a step in the right direction.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    The rich already have too much influence in our political system.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Good deal for "We The People" to be counted correctly as we VOTE!
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE