I think the only limitation on contributions should be that candidates can only receive donations from people who are their constituents. Presidents can accept from everyone, Senators can accept from people in their state, Representatives can only accept from people in their district, and so on. But outside of that, let’s allow citizens to give as much as they want with every single donation (no matter how small) being recorded for transparency and posterity.

Rob,

Bravo! I would add just one tiny proviso: campaign contributions should be limited to US citizens. Period. No corporations, not PACs, not unions, or 501s or 527s. Only US citizens who are by definition legally eligible to vote.

And each and every contribution accounted for, no matter how large or how small. In this digital age of instant information, there is no excuse for us not knowing who contributed what to whom yesterday.

If we don’t have a ceiling on idividual donations whats to stop someone from like Soros from doing what he’s doing now? And do we want to stop him?

What Soros is doing now is funneling money through PACs, foundations, and front groups. Unlimited individual giving with full disclosure is the best way to go because a) that is protected by the first and b) then we know who is giving what to whom instead of having money funneled through PACs that can come from anybody anywhere (even those who might not otherwise be eligible to donate to a compaign).

kbiel,

Great point about the political parties. They should be treated like any other organization, for profit or not, foundations, corporations, unions, the lot of them. No contributions, no advertising.

Sally,

I am not willing to limit my right to donate what I choose, to whomever I choose, simply to stop George Soros. But I am willing to go on public record with my political donations, so long as that same requirement is enforced for everyone else… including Mr. Soros.

If the rules are as I’ve described them, roughly, then Soros can only donate to a single presidential candidate as well as to those candidates running for election in the state and congressional district in which he is a legal. voting resident.

If he wants to donate $100 million to Hillary’s campaign, he could do so, as long as the contribution was publicly reported immediately. Financially, that would be a tremendous boost to her campaign, but only if she could convince enough voters that she was NOT bought and paid for by Mr. Soros.

I’m just optimistic enough about the American voting public to believe that neither Hillary, nor any other candidate, could pull that off. With the instant transparency comes the accountability.

Incidentally, I also think it’d be a good idea if any and all unused campaign contributions were appropriated by the respective state or federal treasuries after each election.

Yep, full disclosure. Why, again, was full disclosure not a primary component of McCain-Fiengold?

I don’t want to limit donations either and I like the idea of transparency.

I also believe I should be able to provide assistance to candidates in other states that are running for a national office. Kennedy, Durbin et. al. do as much harm to my liberty as my own senator Dominchi to augment it.

What I don’t quite understand, Bat, is why eliminate contributions from corporations and PACs etc.?

By the way, I’m apparently much more cynical than you. The american voter, in my view is largely uninformed and ignorant. If it was at all plausible, and it aint, I like to voter reform.

Needless to say that cesorship is not a big problem anymore. The people have their right to know everything about their country, their nation and not only that. And they will, if not with this goverment, then the one that they will put in it’s place will surely do the job.
no fee balance transfers

Kbiel,

You’ll have to excuse me, I’m a little slow.

What Soros is doing now is funneling money through PACs, foundations, and front groups.

Okay, but we already know this. Are you saying Soros wouldn’t be able to find another way to get this money to a candidate?

Here’s my fear…everytime the goverment gets involved in censoring or legislating anything to do with free speech… they screw it up.

Even when they have good intentions they can’t get it right.

Sally,

You’re not cynical enough! You assume they actually mean what they say. First mistake. Second, for most politicians the first rule of the game is to stay n the game, as Kim Roosevelt once put it. Their first concern is their own reelection, not your First Amendment rights.

You only see this as a screwup because you view their actions from your/our perspective… not theirs.

Well Bat,

Thank you very much for taking the time to explain your views.

You argue your points well.

where elected officials can rely on outside money and ignore their own constituents.

For myself, this points more to the corruption of the values of our politcians.

If a company’s employees or a labor union’s members wish to support a particular candidate, they should be free to do so…as individuals. 527s, foundations, labor unions, and corporations don’t vote. People do.

As for this, I’ll have to give it more thought. My concern is that anyone one with the will to so can and will exploit the rules. Then it comes down to who is better at achieving that goal.