[Quote]Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton will propose a slate of campaign finance reform measures on Tuesday aimed at limiting political donations by corporations and large donors and increasing transparency in election spending.
Clinton, who is seeking the nomination to be the Democratic candidate in the November 2016 presidential election, identified measures she would pursue if she becomes president.
Among them are rules requiring greater disclosure of political spending including by publicly traded companies and U.S. government contractors and a program that would provide matching funds for small donations to presidential and congressional candidates.
"We have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political system, and drowning out the voices of too many everyday Americans," Clinton said in a statement issued by her campaign.
"Our democracy should be about expanding the franchise, not charging an entrance fee."
The measures are aimed at tapping into voter concern over inequality, ranging from income to influence in national affairs. Clinton has put the issue at the center of her campaign, saying she will champion "everyday Americans" and boost the middle class.
But Clinton has come in for criticism for that theme, given her own family wealth and her decades in high-profile public positions.
Clinton also plans to call for an overturning of the controversial 2010 Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court. It allowed corporations and individuals to spend unlimited money for political advocacy through independent political action committees so long as they do not coordinate with candidates.[/Quote]
[url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/08/us-usa-election-clinton-campaignfinance-idUSKCN0R809E20150908]Reuters[/url]
[QUOTE]Clinton also plans to call for an overturning of the controversial 2010 Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court. It allowed corporations and individuals to spend unlimited money for political advocacy through independent political action committees so long as they do not coordinate with candidates. [/QUOTE]
"I'm going to be the last corporate candidate" I guess?
Preaching water, drinking wine, eh?
Lol whatever hillary
Come in Kettle, this is Pot. Black, over.
Like I'm supposed to trust you, as you accept the very money you claim you want to destroy.
Nice. Who paid for her saying that?
This message brought you by [B]Never[/B].
Classic example of actions speaking louder than words.
Like President Obama was going to close Gitmo, right? Get real. This shit won't happen with a member of a political machine like Hillary.
This is the most hypocritical thing I have ever read
Clinton Can rally against PACs because she doesn't get much money from PACs. Most of her money comes from individuals (who are affiliated with companies like citigroupm goldman sachs, or JP Morgan Chase) donating the legal maximum. Typically I think companies like this will tell their employees to vote for x candidate because it would be best for the company.
[url]https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019[/url]
what's the point of reporting on what mainstream politicians say they'll do? They don't, so let's just move on.
Expanded election fund, compulsory disclosure regardless of whether they take from the election fund or not, reform PACs to also have disclosure, eliminate super-pacs, deregulate crowdfunding or clear up the regulations on it, and remove donation limit as long as full transparency is established for every organization that can participate in the election. Let's see how some people much they really would donate if people were allowed to know who they are
[editline]8th September 2015[/editline]
Unfortunately clinton can campaign for it but this is a congressional problem and Congress would never pass long lasting reform, itd be purposefully written to punt to the SC so they avoid congressmen from getting blamed for its failure
The irony meter is so off the charts its back on the chart, too little too late.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48638719]Clinton Can rally against PACs because she doesn't get much money from PACs. Most of her money comes from individuals (who are affiliated with companies like citigroupm goldman sachs, or JP Morgan Chase) donating the legal maximum. Typically I think companies like this will tell their employees to vote for x candidate because it would be best for the company.
[url]https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019[/url][/QUOTE]
Haha I'm glad you linked to this because I was coming in just to say "the candidate whose top financier is Citigroup wants campaign finance reform? Fuck off"
Still not as retarded as her college proposal to just pay off student loans if they're not payed out within 20 years.
Ofcourse, you will still feel that loan and in 20 years it will be nothing basically, so what's the fucking point.
[QUOTE=srobins;48639073]Haha I'm glad you linked to this because I was coming in just to say "the candidate whose top financier is Citigroup wants campaign finance reform? Fuck off"[/QUOTE]
The issue isn't that her main backer is citigroup, the issue is the means by which candidates are backed. Big, mainstream candidates like Clinton or Obama or most anyone on the republican side are backed mostly by a conglomerate of banks and financial institutions, labor unions, Oil companies, and other special interests.
In fact, if you look at most of the major candidates, over 90% of their funding comes from individual donations. PACs are inconsequential to presidential candidates
[url=https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00000019]Clinton - 99%[/url]
[url=https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00037006]Jeb Bush - 96%[/url]
[url=https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00000528]Sanders - 91%[/url]
[url=https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00036973]Ben Carson - 100%[/url]
[url=https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00001380]Rick Santorum - 92%[/url]
and here's Rand Paul, who gets 77% of his money from individuals
[url=https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00030836]Rand Paul - 77%[/url]
Not including Trump because he's mostly self-funded
The problem is congressional candidates. Here's some big names:
[url=https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003675]Boehner - 16%[/url] (20% from PACs, 64% from "other")
[url=https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00007360]Nancy Pelosi - 55%[/url]
[url=https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003389]Mitch McConnell - 61%[/url] (20% from PACs)
[url=https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00009922]Harry Reid - 50%[/url] (32% from PACs)
and such. In fact, you'll find that as you get more and more away from the executive branch (even into the states), the role of PACs because more apparent. You find, then, that at the local level, if a candidate goes against his billionaire sugar daddy's views, you'll see his opponent win the next election, even though incumbents have something like [url=https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php]90% re-election rate[/url]. This is, in fact, [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-nra-helped-put-bernie-sanders-in-congress/2015/07/19/ed1be26c-2bfe-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html]how Bernie Sanders got into politics, when his republican opponent supported an assault weapons ban[/url]. The NRA responded by pulling funding from his republican incumbent opponent and supported Sanders. This could also explain why Sanders has never taken a strong stance one way or the other on Gun Control
(sources: [quote]
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/05/13/why-the-most-liberal-candidate-for-president-opposes-strict-gun-control/[/url]
[url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/10/generation-forward-pac/did-bernie-sanders-vote-against-background-checks-/[/url]
[url]http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/24/417180805/bernie-sanders-walks-a-fine-line-on-gun-control[/url]
[url]http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm[/url][/quote])
This is why clinton can oppose PACs. They're inconsequential to the Presidential race
^
PACs are a joke, they aren't allowed to collude with the campaigns but they are allowed to basically fund all marketing, communications, rallies and nobody has ever gotten in trouble for breaking what flimsy layer already exists, and they usually are run by people connected to the candidate directly
The point is pacs are unlimited opaque spending chests, jeb bush for example spent a long time consulting various pacs before he officially started running even though he was already campaigning
Does anybody else feel like that Clinton has been adopting all of Sanders policies in an attempt to get in on this whole populism thing going on?
Seriously, there are so many people who don't know Sanders, but agree with the jist of his ideas. Clinton adopts all the popular opinions, doesn't ever mention Sanders by name(with the media doing the same), and rides on name recognition all the way to the nomination. Then of course when she is in office doesn't go through with anything because of reasons, also while appointing corporate insiders to cabinet positions like Obama
[QUOTE=Mooman;48642156]Does anybody else feel like that Clinton has been adopting all of Sanders policies in an attempt to get in on this whole populism thing going on?
Seriously, there are so many people who don't know Sanders, but agree with the jist of his ideas. Clinton adopts all the popular opinions, doesn't ever mention Sanders by name(with the media doing the same), and rides on name recognition all the way to the nomination. Then of course when she is in office doesn't go through with anything because of reasons, also while appointing corporate insiders to cabinet positions like Obama[/QUOTE]
Sander's will be almost as pleased with that outcome as him getting the ticket himself, that was the original purpose of him running; he wanted pressure Clinton into adopting some of his policies.
[QUOTE=Aldawolf;48642170]Sander's will be almost as pleased with that outcome as him getting the ticket himself, that was the original purpose of him running; he wanted pressure Clinton into adopting some of his policies.[/QUOTE]
Is that what his fans have adopted as the reasoning why he won't get through the primaries now? That he never really wanted to do it?
[QUOTE=Mooman;48642156]Does anybody else feel like that Clinton has been adopting all of Sanders policies in an attempt to get in on this whole populism thing going on?
Seriously, there are so many people who don't know Sanders, but agree with the jist of his ideas. Clinton adopts all the popular opinions, doesn't ever mention Sanders by name(with the media doing the same), and rides on name recognition all the way to the nomination. Then of course when she is in office doesn't go through with anything because of reasons, also while appointing corporate insiders to cabinet positions like Obama[/QUOTE]
it is very normal in elections to see big candidates adopt the policies of smaller candidates as elections get closer.
[QUOTE=Ridge;48642190]Is that what his fans have adopted as the reasoning why he won't get through the primaries now? That he never really wanted to do it?[/QUOTE]
This is the original purpose to him running was, but he surged in popularity recently so now he's going for the real deal. Don't act like I'm some blind fanboy who's trying to kiss Sander's ass at every opportunity.
[QUOTE=Aldawolf;48642772]This is the original purpose to him running was, but he surged in popularity recently so now he's going for the real deal. Don't act like I'm some blind fanboy who's trying to kiss Sander's ass at every opportunity.[/QUOTE]
I'm not tracking you, personally, but for every person who was at one of the Occupy rallies, there seems to be 3 people who say that Sanders is unstoppable and will blow all the mainstream opponents away.
Just put it to a vote like a real democracy, let the people decide, pretty damn sure 99% will vote to limit donations.
[QUOTE=Mooman;48642156]Does anybody else feel like that Clinton has been adopting all of Sanders policies in an attempt to get in on this whole populism thing going on?
Seriously, there are so many people who don't know Sanders, but agree with the jist of his ideas. Clinton adopts all the popular opinions, doesn't ever mention Sanders by name(with the media doing the same), and rides on name recognition all the way to the nomination. Then of course when she is in office doesn't go through with anything because of reasons, also while appointing corporate insiders to cabinet positions like Obama[/QUOTE]
But Clinton has always been for electoral reform? Most Democrats always have been.
[editline]9th September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Arrows;48642811]Just put it to a vote like a real democracy, let the people decide, pretty damn sure 99% will vote to limit donations.[/QUOTE]
Might as well let the people vote on absolutely everything then, which would be expensive and inefficient, because that's the precedent that would create.
[QUOTE=Ridge;48642794]I'm not tracking you, personally, but for every person who was at one of the Occupy rallies, there seems to be 3 people who say that Sanders is unstoppable and will blow all the mainstream opponents away.[/QUOTE]
I have not seen a single person like that. The most I've seen ANYONE say is that Sanders "has a chance."
If Clinton wins the nomination I'm voting republican
[QUOTE=cody8295;48643299]If [I]Clinton wins the nomination[/I] I'm voting republican[/QUOTE]
I really hope that doesn't happen
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
