Party contributions and corruption

Originally posted by twhitehead
[/b]I don't believe in arguing about definitions. A word does not imbue properties on its subject. If you feel the word doesn't fit, I respect your right not to use it. I do want to know why however, and I do want to know what word you think is better.

Is it "right" that I can give my own money to a political party if I so choose? Yes IMO. Why is just ent coffers. For this reason it is quite difficult to get a ruling party out of power.

So anything you do that might influence an election is "corruption"? Can I talk to other people and say "You should vote for Candidate X" or is that "corrupting" the process as well?

The ruling party or any party shouldn't be allowed to fund its campaign from the government. But I thought that was your "solution"?

Originally posted by no1marauder
So anything you do that might influence an election is "corruption"? Can I talk to other people and say "You should vote for Candidate X" or is that "corrupting" the process as well?

The ruling party or any party shouldn't be allowed to fund its campaign from the government. But I thought that was your "solution"?

Why should there be no government funding for political parties?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Why should there be no government funding for political parties?

It's not necessary or desirable. They are not essential entities but if people want to spend their own money on them, fine. But government funds should be spent on public goods and/or for socially necessary purposes.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In another thread I claimed that contributing to a political party was corrupt. I have been thinking it over since then and I cannot think of a single reason why anyone, individual or corporate, would contribute money to a political party unless they believe it will influence either their chances of getting elected, or their decisions post election.

Has anyone here contributed to a party? Why did you do it?

I've never contributed to a party, but have to special interest groups like the NRA, and on a few instances to individual candidates. Of course I expect the candidate or organization to represent my interests.

The problem with money in politics is not people trying to buy influence, whether me or George Soros, or other wealthy donors. If there is a problem, it is not that there are buyers, but that buyers would not exist if there weren't sellers.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So, if a campaign contribution increases a candidates chance of getting elected (which is clearly undemocratic as a persons election chances should be based entirely on votes), would you classify that as corruption? If not, what name would you give it?

No, I would not classify that as corruption. Paying someone to vote for McCain would have been corruption. McCain promising everyone $500 if he had been elected would have been corruption.

It's advertising. As long as advertising is not false, it isn't the same thing as corruption, and that goes for advertising a candidate, too. (NB. I'm not saying I like ads, though.)

Originally posted by twhitehead
What is it in your dictionary? That is what I am asking in this thread.
And is it right or wrong?
Is it unavoidable?
Is there a better system?

If it is done openly and voluntarily, how is it corrupt? And since it isn't corrupt, why is it limited or regulated?

Originally posted by sh76
Actually, I've never made a campaign contribution on the federal level. I gave some money to the campaign of a friend of mine who was running for town council because, well, he's my friend. (And he won, by the way.)

I'd like to see Mitt Romney win the GOP nomination, but I don't care enough to actually give money. Perhaps I would give some $$ if I thought th ...[text shortened]... ince I can't, I'm certainly not giving away my hard earned money to make a symbolic point.

Have you ever given time, or donated effort to a political campaign? Like handing out flyers, or making phone calls? Helping a candidate with speech writing or ad copy?

Originally posted by no1marauder
It's not necessary or desirable. They are not essential entities but if people want to spend their own money on them, fine. But government funds should be spent on public goods and/or for socially necessary purposes.

Government subsidies for political parties, if granted fairly, can increase the accessibility of the political system to new parties.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't believe in arguing about definitions. A word does not imbue properties on its subject. If you feel the word doesn't fit, I respect your right not to use it. I do want to know why however, and I do want to know what word you think is better.

[b] Is it "right" that I can give my own money to a political party if I so choose? Yes IMO. Why is just ...[text shortened]... ent coffers. For this reason it is quite difficult to get a ruling party out of power.

Definitions are the essence of debate, and of rational communications. Words must have specific meanings, or we are just beating air.

Your comment on government influencing elections is key. That does reduce and hinder democracy. If giving money is corrupt, then any form of campaigning is. Without campaigning, voters would be flying blind. Whatever little we know about candidates is discovered in campaigning.

Since neither the government nor media is truly objective, campaign ads positive and negative are our best source of information about candidates.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Government subsidies for political parties, if granted fairly, can increase the accessibility of the political system to new parties.

Parties but also qualified individuals should have equal access to at least one universally-known public area where their message can be heard by all voters.

Originally posted by spruce112358
Parties but also qualified individuals should have equal access to at least one universally-known public area where their message can be heard by all voters.

I suppose so, but what does this have to do with my post?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not talking specifically about 'strings attached' as in Obama making decisions that he thinks you like in return for your money, I am talking about the fact that Obama was elected partly because of campaign contributions. This essentially means that if you have someone wanting to run for president who represents the poorest 50% of the country, his ch ...[text shortened]... e rich foreigner will come and bankroll his campaign and essentially buy himself a presidency.

We have a rule about being "natural born" in the US too.

In spite of fears of people buying elective office, it doesn't seem to be a significant problem here. Very often well heeled candidates end up losing, and when they do win there isn't any evidence that their agenda is directly dictated by donors or personal avarice.

Originally posted by spruce112358
McCain 2000. To increase his chance of getting elected.

It is lobbyists like MPAA/Chris Dodd that expect quid pro quo.

Yep. It's not Joe Blow American's campaign contribution that is corrupt.

Think of it this way. If you had $100 to donate to candidates you believed would take the country in the direction you want to see it go, would you donate $50 of it to John Boehner, and $50 of it to Nancy Pelosi?

Hell no you wouldn't, but that's essentially what many corporations do (with much larger numbers). They do that to buy influence on specific issues that make their investment worthwhile. They buy influence that you and I can't afford, and they receive it because they paid for it. That is corruption.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Government subsidies for political parties, if granted fairly, can increase the accessibility of the political system to new parties.

In general, I'm satisfied with the access the system gives to "new" political parties in my State. If you get over a certain amount of votes in the Governor's election, you're automatically on the ballot in following elections. I see no compelling need to throw money at political parties which are unable to convince people to support them.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Government subsidies for political parties, if granted fairly, can increase the accessibility of the political system to new parties.

" if granted fairly"

Big if.