McLaughlin Assignment 5 DUE 10/21/10
Based on our discussions in class and the resources listed, respond to the following questions in no less than 150 words:
In January of 2010 the US Supreme court ruled that the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002, the US federal law that regulates the financing of political campaigns, was in violation of corporations' and unions' First Amendment rights. Under the January 2010 ruling, corporations and unions are no longer barred from promoting the election of one candidate over another candidate. Read over the following article which examines the current impacts of the Supreme Court's decision (particularly page 3): http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43515.html
In your opinion, should there be limits on how much corporations and unions can contribute to candidates' campaigns? Why or why not? Perhaps more importantly, do you think corporations (or even citizens) should be allowed to contribute large sums to candidates' campaigns anonymously? Why or Why not?
I do not think corporations and citizens should be allowed to contribute large sums to candidates campaigns anonymously. It can have a huge impact on the out come of the elections. The more money a candidate has, the better chances they can have at wining. With more money they would be able to promote and advertise them selves more. It is said that this is an illegal act, but with out knowing where the money is originating from there is no say in weather or not it is in fact legal or illegal.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that corporations and unions need to have a limit on how much people contribute to the candidates campaigns. Anyone who wants to contribute should be allowed to give as much as they want, its their choice and I don't think its necessary to limit them. I do however think that large sums shouldn't be anonymous. You don't know where this money is coming from and I don't think thats safe. The person who is contributing should give their name so the company can go back to them just in case their is a problem with the money transfer. It is also unsafe to accept large amounts of money from someone not knowing where its coming from. It could be stolen for all we know or even foreign commerce which is illegal. I think that if it wasn't anonymous it would be easier for everyone, just so their more clear about where the money is coming in from.
ReplyDelete-Chrysanthe Thomatos Pd. 3
I believe there shouldn't be a limit to how much corporations and unions can contribute to candidates' campaigns. However, I believe that who ever contributes should be known and out in the open. I also think that candidates should also be aware of who funds them because it can and maybe even will definitely affect their campaigns. As far as donations go, it is up to the candidate. If they would like to take money by all means go ahead. Personally, I find it to be a little greedy and selfish because fundraising is apart of your campaign. The candidates and the team should be going out there and being proactive. The only problem, I find is the anonymity and confidentiality of the donation's. First of all, if someone is funding you; they should be proud to say. The two parties or more should have enough respect to acknowledge who are are teamed up with. Secondly, anonymity raises the question of trust. How do we know if they are in for good? How do we know how the money is acquired? This can lead into stealing, embezzlement & all these other crimes. If this is going to be done, it should be out in the open. No one has to hide anything because if they may be hidden; things will present themselves in another situation one way or another.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I do not feel that their needs to be limits on how much a corporation or a union can contribute to candidates' campaigns. I feel this way because it makes no sense to tell people how much they can or can’t give I would only support the no limitation to the donation if the corporation or union is not using it in a way where they want something in return later on from the candidate which is like bribing. But if they are doing it with the intention of giving for support I feel that they should be able to give as much as they like. As for corporations or even citizens be allowed to contribute large sums to candidates' campaigns anonymously I think that is not a good idea. Because if something were to happen and that money was used in the wrong way I would want to know where to trace it back to and if its anonymous it would create a lot of problems also it will create more suspicions on where this large amounts of money is coming from why such big amounts are given to the candidates and a lot of other problems will build up.
ReplyDeleteI feel that there should be limits as to how much corporations and labor unions contribute to a candidate’s campaign because I believe it is unjust to support them so much. This article states that many companies are helping and paying certain candidates campaigns in the hopes of them supporting their corporations in return, if they are elected for office. At the same time, they (the unions and corporations) are disobeying a law that was made four decades ago by certain advocates which states that they have to make their money spending more transparent. Because of this, we can not keep track of the money America spends. We don’t know if this money is being used for good causes or for the greed of the corporations.
ReplyDeleteI think that supporting a certain candidate is unjust because by supporting that candidate, people are completely ignoring the other one. That other candidate might be just as good of a person in line for the job as the one corporation’s are supporting, however we may not notice them because they won’t be in the spotlight as much. They aren’t given a chance to prove themselves because the candidate that the corporations support might constantly be seen in the media. Even though some might argue that controlling money spent by corporations goes against their first amendment rights, I still believe that not keeping track of their spending will eventually lead us into a deeper amount of trouble economic wise. For instance, by spending a large amount of money here and there for certain campaigns might lead us to accumulate more dept issues then the ones we already have.
The US Supreme court ruled the McCain-feingold Act of 2002. To regulate the financing of political campaigns. It is also known as the Bipartisan campaign Reform Act. I agree with the government in limiting on how much corporations and unions can contribute to candidates campaign. I also feel that citizens or corporations should not be allowed to contribute money anonymously. having money contributed to candidates anonymously violates federal law by failing to register as "political committees". It is important to identify the spender and identify the activities of such a person corporations and unions profit by spending their money on politicians large corporations previously campaigned huge last-minute ads. This campaign finance reform law prohibits spending in excess of federal campaign limits to pay for a campaign ad masquerading as something else. final minutes of airtime before an election is very expensive. Campaign ad should be made public as to how they were funded. this reform doesn't allow Federal building employees to solicit donations from federal employees. this coercion and intimidation prevents any problems that could occur from individual beliefs.
ReplyDeleteVittorio Rivera period 3
I believe that during election season, candidates campaigns should in fact have some sort of limit on them. If certain corporations are donating excessive amounts of money to one candidate, maybe such as in the millions for say, it would not be fair for the other candidate who possibly can not get that much of a contribution. Contributions should have no minimum amount, considering any kind of money given is generous, but definitely should have a maximum amount. People should be able to choose a candidate of their choice not by how tech savvy and impressive their campaigns are, or how many free things are given away, but by how well they run their campaign, and what they are offering to us citizens. Most importantly, I absolutely do NOT think that corporations or even citizens should be allowed to contribute money anonymously. Contributing anonymous money can possibly and most likely lead to illegal terms. How do we not know that the anonymous money is coming from another country? Things like this can be possible, and should have no possibility of happening in a campaign.
ReplyDelete-Chelsea Rosario PD3
I believe that there should be limits on how much corporations and unions can contribute to candidates’ campaigns for a few reasons. Say a major corporation, such as Apple, is donating tons of money to a candidates' campaign, because of their donations, this candidate will be able to afford to do a lot more with their campaign then fellow candidates. Since we live in a society that is so fascinated by "new and shiny" things, that a higher campaign budget could easily influence voters. I do not think corporations should be allowed to contribute large sums to candidates’' campaigns anonymously because it is unfair. If a corporation has faith or supports the view points of a person running, and is willing to donate to their campaign, they should proudly show their support. I think if a corporation is anonymously donating, they are scared to show their support, and does not have complete faith in the person running.
ReplyDelete- Amanda Paolotti
i don't think there should be a limit towards how much they can fund because its the unions and corporations money and they should be allowed to fund whoever and do what ever they want with it. i feel the same way about citizens funding candidates. if the people feel strongly about the person they want to vote for and want to help them win why shouldn't they be allowed to send in money.
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe there should be any limits on how much corporations and unions can contribute to candidates’ campaigns. I think that everyone has the natural right to help out any candidate that they want in office – to me it’s the same as a person writing about why this person should be in office and how they can change peoples’ lives. I am not too sure about the whole anonymous situation I mean, if an individual is willing to give big sums of money to a certain party or candidate they why would they want to be keep their identity out of the picture? If you support someone then say it, isn’t that the point of giving the money away? So that people can recognize the fact that they know you are supporting them. I can see why it’s an issue because nobody knows where the money is coming from and since that’s technically illegal the Democrats especially aren’t happy about it. There isn’t a sense of equality that goes around the hunt for voters because one of the parties is having a significant advantage from a person or group that nobody knows about. And because the Supreme Court ruled that anybody can give unlimited amounts anonymous to any candidate, it’s half and half with me. The Democrats accused of them violating the tax code and hiding their donors which I don’t understand why they would say that if there’s no solid evidence of this occurring. The Citizens should be able to give money to whoever they want, but I don’t see the need for it to be anonymous.
ReplyDeleteLivianette Cabrera period 3
I think their should be some limits on what corporations and unions give to the candidate campaign because you dont want to give them so much and see them spend it on worthless stuff. They should probablly ask how much they want and what for so they can make sure their not over exadurating with the money that is needed for them to run for their campaigne. I think they should be allowed to get large abounts of money for their campaigns because if note how are they going to get around to tell people to vote for them. Also to make them selves look good with what they do with that money and show that they can use it wisely. Hopefully they dnt give them so so much money that they just go crazy with it or use it for dumb stuff.
ReplyDeleteChristopher Caraballo period 5
The social contract gives an understanding that the people give up soverignty to a government or an authority in order to maintain social order. The preamble is directed to the people, the citizens of the Unites States. The language is direct and clear, so it is easy to understand.It reflects the idea of the social contract because the social contract is also understanding so the the citizens are able to have a complete understanding about order.The social contract reflects the idea of agreements and having a set of rules. The preamble states the set of laws or rules that will be inforced by the constitution. through the language and organization of the preamble, the constitution will be able to govern the people, and set rules. Both the social contract and the preamble have a uniform concept. The language is comprehensible and obvious, immediately stating the facts. Vittorio Rivera period 3
ReplyDeleteThere should be limits on how much corporations and unions can contribute to candidates’ campaigns. By being able to donate large sums of money can make the race uneven and give certain candidates very unfair advantages. If candidate A has a million dollar campaign due to large sums of donations and Candidate B has a 10,000 dollar campaign, it is clear to say that there is little to no competition. Voters will be blinded by the expensive commercials and print adds to see that there are other candidates’ apart of the competition. Corporations and citizens should also not be allowed to contribute large sums to campaigns anonymously. There will be no way to trace back to where the money came from. It will become impossible to make sure that the money that is contributed is legal. Many scandals can turn up and bring about much of an up roar. There is no reason why a company should want to donate anonymously if they are faithful to candidate that they want to win.
ReplyDelete~Sarah Bianchi
In my opinion I don't think that there should be limits to how much a person spends on their campaign as long as there not offending their opponents then i don't think it should matter its like pride theirs no limit as long as theirs no racism. If a person wants to spend every dollar in their pocket on their campaign its their problem if that money was worth spending or not.
ReplyDeleteI think if its a donation its fine if we can donate to the PTA or donate to anything basically then why not be able to donate to someone that we want to represent us. I think everyone should be able to handle there own money as they please.
- Georgina
Period:3
SHARON KAHN
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that their shouldn't be limits on how much corporations and unions can contribute to a candidates' campaigns. If a specific corporation or union feel strongly for a certain candidate or feel that they would greatly benefit from that candidate. Candidates work hard in order to please a majority of people and if they are doing a good job and corporations or unions agree with the candidates ideas they should be all means be rewarded for that and granted unlimited contributions towards their campaign. The issue with anonymous donations becomes very tricky. Candidates should be able to gain contributions from anonymous citizens, corporations, or unions. Contributors feel protected by anonymous votes for different reasons. If one corporation donated a lot of money for a specific candidates campaign and that candidate ended up losing, they wouldn't want the winning candidate to discriminate against them or not be as willing to work hard for them because they didn't initially "support" them. With an anonymous contribution, the winning candidate wouldn't know how much money was donated to their opponent or whom it is from.
I do believe there should be limits on how much corporations and unions can contribute to candidates’ campaigns. I think it’s unfair that candidates who do not have an equal amount of funds to spend on campaigns or choose not to spend an equal amount on campaigns but have better ideals, goals, and ideas can lose. The saying money can buy anything really applies here. With an open policy on contributions, the sky’s the limit on donations. A candidate is able to pretty much buy their way into office by overpowering their opponents with campaigns. Sadly the citizens of today like watching a lot of TV, looking at pictures with few words, and reading things online. The name they see the most is the one their likely to choose. I think that is unfair. Candidates should be chosen upon their values and what they plan to bring to the table. Therefore I think they’re should be an equal limit that corporations and unions are allowed to contribute up to and that candidates are allowed to receive.
ReplyDeleteI also do not think that corporations or citizens should be allowed to contribute not only large sums to candidates anonymously but all sums. Something about it is very fishy. Why should they need to have anonymity at all? Unless there is something to hide! As stated in the article, corporations outside the US, random unknown people are donating to, “a congress that will serve their interests at the expense of the American people.” When someone you don’t know and trust gives you money there’s almost always a catch. Furthermore it was also stated that these, “undisclosed donors will pay a huge part in this and the 2012 election.” Why are we letting unknown donors control the results of our elections? The aftermath of these recent loosening of restrictions on contributions is going to be catastrophic. The amount of corruption that is bound to happen is sneakily waiting around the corner to pounce on the US. If it’s supposedly the people who run government and decide everything than why are we letting money and big corporations, some not even in the US take our place.
Melissa Iachetta, Period 3
In my opinion, I think it is a good thing in a way to have sponsors and corporations help out a little for competitors and their campaigns. However, overdoing the situation and having more and more money get spent, and then suddenly get anonymous money that no one knows about, is wrong. To have a reform for the campaigns, would honestly be a good idea, because too much money has been used for these campaigns, and I feel like the competitors are trying too hard to get the public to take notice in all the money that they put into it, when the quality of what they want to do is much more important for the state or country. They have strategies with getting things done in their campaign, but it doesn't mean that some extra help is the right thing to do in the situation. It seems like it is almost hush money in a way, because people find out about it after all the damage is done, and the dirty consequences are presented. The only way to control it is for a reform or change, to limit the spending and support from corporations. They think it will benefit them, but it can hurt the campaign and the people running even more, because it can be considered a scandal. The overall fact is that anything anonymous is always risky to do, since things can never be determined accurately.
ReplyDeleteAnastasia Papis pd 5
I feel that there should be a limit to the amount of anonymous contributions that corporations and unions are giving away to candidates' campaigns. Due to the amount of money one person may receive can change the entire outcome of the elections. With more money to work with the candidate can produce more advertisements and greatly increase their votes. It's one thing to say "may the best win" but money does talk in this society and without we get no where. I think it's unfair to make anonymous donations to candidates. If a corporation or union is going to give that large of a tribute they should allow the public to know where the money came from.
ReplyDelete-Jesssica Morales
Just as there is a law preventing a person from shouting fire in a movie theatre, there should also be restrictions on the ability or “rights” of a corporation to fund public campaigns. It is accepted that a corporation is a single standing entity who is entitled to its personal rights but a big line should be drawn separating a corporation’s right from the rights of a citizen. As a now we even deny rights to a corporation such as the “right” of the company to run and hold public office so starting from there, the idea of restricting a corporation’s rights is not unheard of and should be furthered. I think that there should be limits on how much a corporation can contribute to a campaign because if there were none, it would turn into an ideal environment for runaway corruption. For example, if 90% of a campaign’s funds came from a corporation, the candidate whose top priority is to be voted into office will undoubtedly bend to the will of the company and carry out its bidding. This environment of unchecked and obscure funding will create a slippery slope which will end up privatizing the US government because at the end of the day, it all comes down to money. With corporate funding in politics, it will be more about who has the money instead of focusing on the issues at hand. To continue an example put out by the Washington Post, if Candidate X opposes raising tariffs while Candidate Y wants to raise tariffs to fix the deficit, Candidate X will have more money donated to him because of his viewpoint. Even though Candidate Y will have a better plan that will fix the economy, Candidate X wins because he ends up with more money from donations and is able to reach more people through his campaign.
ReplyDeleteCorporations should not be allowed to contribute large sums to candidate’s campaigns anonymously because the government should be about transparency. The people should get what they voted for and they should receive their wishes through their elected officials. That is the basis of democracy is the United States. If there was more transparency especially with the funds of a candidate, the result would be more honest politicians who will carry out the will of the people better than our current politicians.
-Frank Zhao
I think there should be limits on how much corporations and unions can contribute to candidates' campaigns, because the purpose of candidates' campaigns is to let people understand how is each team or person’s abilities and what they will do after they win. They shouldn’t spend too much money, when they haven’t done anything good for people yet.
ReplyDeleteI believe that corporations should be allowed to contribute large sums to candidates’ campaigns anonymously, because I don’t think the government should stop people if they really want to help out the party which they support. I also believe that contributors should be anonymously, which can keep people away from make a deal under-the-table, such as using secret money to buy a Congress.
I don’t think that corporations and unions should have limits on how much they can contribute to a candidate’s campaign. They have as much right as individual citizens to contribute money to support their candidate. The U.S. government is supposed to be of the people. Corporations ARE part of “the people,” meaning they too have a right to demonstrate their support for whom they want to be represented by in government. They should be allowed to contribute ANY amount of money they want. However, I don’t think they should be allowed to contribute large sums anonymously because that rises a questioning of why they choose to do so. The first judgement is the suspicion that the monetary contribution are funds obtained illegally.
ReplyDeleteMariela Ortiz(period 3)
I think that there definitely should be a limit on the idea of contributing large sums to candidates campaigns anonymously. If they're going to support the person they might as well say who they're without hiding anything. What do they have to lose exactly? They shouldn't have to hide what they're doing if it's legal. If it's illegal well they still should not have to hide what they're doing and suffer they consequences like everyone else in America. Just because they have money doesn't mean that they get away with everything that they do.
ReplyDeleteCorporations and Unions should have the right to contribute to candidates' campaigns only if the money they are contributing is limited and is actually theirs. Campaigns need to bring in money although it's strange to see this money can't be traced. Millions of dollars coming in, but from where? The people don't know, the politicians don't know, only the campaigners. The topic of scandals is coming about because that is all they can really call it. Untraceable money is like cheating in the government world, the more money you get the more campaigning and advertisements are put out which will lead to a "low-profile" win. Current politicians in favor are trying their best to limit the money contributing campaigns.
ReplyDeleteCHRISTINA CHRONOS PRD 3
I believe there should be a limit on how much corporations and unions can contribute to candidates campaigns. I feel that it can be unfair for the candidate who may not be dabbling in the “secret money” but have better ideas and actions they want to put forward but don’t have the money themselves to advertise them. The fact that there’s an open policy on these type of things, its pretty much like theres no limit on these “donations” and in my opinions its like they’re selling themselves and bargaining their way through the elections, and getting upper hand over their opponent because of the amounts of money they are receiving and putting it towards their campaigns. This plan works because in our society in this day and age, well we are very technologically advancements, and technologically obsessed, if we’re not watching TV, was on out computers so the advertisements are seen and read every day, and unfortunately people don’t really put that much thought into their vote so that’s all there is to it. Candidates aren’t really chosen based on ideas and beliefs anymore, it’s about whose most popular. This is why I think there should be a restriction on how much money you get from where. Especially the from where part I don’t understand why it is allowed for candidate to get money from an anonymous source why can the source be unknown it just sounds like an open door to something illegal but it’s not. It makes me think there are some things I don’t know that I should know. Politics are sometimes described as a “dirty game” but can it get to be that dirty with this secret money being legal?
ReplyDeleteKatelyn Disalvo
I do not think it is a problem for corporations to hand out large sums of money to candidates. If you have the connections use them. If you actually have people supporting you then use the money they give you. It should not matter at all really. As long as the identity of the corporation or union is known. In this way there won’t be any case of swindling of foreign money. In any case you would not want to receive money from any anonymous source. For all you know it could be a set up. You should first meet with your sum provider, have a conversation, get to know them and actually know what kind of person this money is coming from and their intentions.
ReplyDeleteJoshua Howard Pd.3
Desirae La Furno
ReplyDeletePeriod 5
I don’t think that there should be any limits on how much corporations and unions can contribute to candidates campaigns. I feel that everyone should have a say in there rights. I do not believe in the anonymous situation becasue why should one person put anonymous If youre putting so much money wouldnt you want to be noticed for this? I think that people should be able to give money to who ever they want. But it shouldnt be private.
I don’t think that corporations and unions should not have the right to contribute a large sum of money anonymously because I believe that it has an impact on the out come of the elections. It is a advantage for that one candidate because it gives them a better chance of winning the elections. Also you don’t know where the money is coming from and it may or not be illegal or not. If you want to win an elections you should be able to do that with out having large sum of money coming in from corporations and or unions. They are also trying to get the public to notice them. I think they notice because you have a lot of money in your campaign I think it is wrong. The people want to have some one in office that they can trust and not worry were they are getting the money from and if you need money to help get peoples at attention I think that you shouldn’t be running in the first place. Then you are running for the wrong reasons.
ReplyDeleteErin O’Driscoll Pd 5
I believe there shouldnt be any limits on how much corporations and unions can contribute to candidates campaigns. People who want to contribute should be able to give as much money as they want without a limit. I also believe that large sums shouldnt be anonymous. I think that the candidates should know where and who the funds are coming from. The money can be used in the wrong way and it needs to be traced it back to who gave it it will be impossible if its anonymous.
ReplyDeleteEleni Danginis pd 5
In my opinion I don’t think that there should be a limit on how much corporations and unions can contribute to a campaign because it’s their choice to sponsor who they want to and how much they want to. I do however; think there should be a limitation on how much a corporation, union, or even citizen can give if they’re going to donate it anonymously. Although you aren’t always 100 percent positive where the money is coming from if it is going to anonymous, that’s where I believe a limit should be drawn. For example, if you’re going to give someone a couple hundred dollars it can be anonymous. But, if you’re going to give a campaign a couple grand, then it shouldn’t be allowed to be anonymous because you should have to keep it on record just in case something happens with the money.
ReplyDeleteI think there should be some limits on how much a corporation and union can contribute to a candidates’ campaign because if they want to support something they believe in, they should without having to be anonymous and it is a competition and a candidate should do all they can do to win. However, I think there should not be corporations donating money anonymously because I do not think there should be a need to support something anonymously. I think if a corporation or union wants to support a candidate, that corporation or union should support it proudly. I think it causes problems if large sums of money are being donated anonymously because no one is going to know where it comes from.
ReplyDeleteShazia R. prd 3
sarah han
ReplyDeleteperiod 5
There shouldn't be limits to how much corporations and unions can contribute to candidate campaigns because it is the corporations and union's own money to spend it however they like. They are in their own rights to give their money to whoever they want and in whatever amount they wish to give. if there are limits to how much they can contribute there will be more chaos then there already is to the 2010 election. Plus their money is very helpful to make this year’s election run smoothly. Large sums of money or not that is contributed to the campaign by citizens or business should never be anonymously donated. First off why would they anonymously donate it? they should be recognized for their generosity to helping their candidates to win the election. it is best to not keep it anonymous it is puzzling to whoever receives it and isn’t good way to send large sums of money.
I don’t think there should be any limits on how much the corporations contribute to the can dates campaigns. I believe that they should have the same rights as the individual citizen would have. But they should have the allowance of contributing of any amount of money. If one corporation donates a lot of money for a specific candidates campaign and that candidate ended up losing, they wouldn't want the winning candidate to discriminate against them or not be as willing to work hard for them because they didn't initially support them.
ReplyDelete-Ariana Medunjanin prd. 3
I do not think there should there be limits on how much corporations and unions can contribute to candidates' campaigns because people of America have freedoms of rights. If someone wants to help a person in there campaign because they believe in them or support there campaign, then they can do so. However, large sums of money should not be annonymous. Everyone should be able to know where all money is coming from so that a true, equal, fair campaign can be run. Everyone has the right to help, but it is important to be truthful. If money is being tracked it will help all campaigns
ReplyDeleteALEXA KANE PERIOD 3
In my opinion, there shouldn’t be limits on how much corporations and unions can contribute to candidates' campaigns. I think that everyone has the right to want to help out any candidate that they want in office it can have a huge impact on the outcome of the elections. The more money a candidate has, the better chances they can have at wining. Some may say well that isn’t fair cause these days it seem money is in charge of many outcome and for those candidate who have little chance of winning because they don’t have much money isn’t fair. Well if they aren’t being funded then it because maybe they shouldn’t win if no one wants them to .I think corporations or citizens should be allowed to contribute large sums to candidates' campaigns anonymously. I mean they are the ones contributing it’s their choice if they want to become public or remain secret they did their job by helping the candidate with money to win people shouldn’t ask for more. Now if you want to be known for contributing then sure better their chances at winning. With more money they would be able to promote and advertise themselves. But without knowing where the money is originating from there is no say in whether or not it is in fact legal or illegal but once you know they’re anonymous you can guess form there if legal or not.
ReplyDeleteperiod 03
daniela varcasia
In my opinion i do not agree with the republican pledge, however I think it is a smart strategy. Alot of voters coming up this November want to see change and one of the main things they are pledging is the exact opposite of the bailout. Rather than help out big businesses they are pledging to help small businesses stay up and running. I don't believe this will work because big business is what makes capitalism thrive and like it or not without large companies our country would spiral into economic turmoil. Having said that I do like the idea of weekly votes on spending cuts. You need ideas like that to help tighten our budgets. I do believe that we need to spend less money on homeland security and "keep terrorists out of America" sounds a bit to vague to pledge to me and say you mean it. If I could vote this November i would still vote Democratic after reading this pledge. The GOP is trying something new however the democrats have much better, seasoned candidates who know the ropes.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that there should be limits on how much corporations and unions can contribute to candidates campaigns. Although having the most money to run a campaign might make things a bit easier and get your name out there, it still doesn't guarantee a victory. You could be really close with the CEO of a corporation and have him donate large sums of money to your campaign for ads and whatnot, but if you believe in your campaign that all babies should be killed, then you're most likely not getting elected to anything. Anonymous or not, I think it is fine with anyone donating large sums to a candidates campaign simply because money doesn't win the campaign. A candidates beliefs morals, and speeches are what will get him/her elected.
ReplyDelete