Search results for query: *

Those citizens already have the capability to donate. Why should they be allowed to donate more than others just b/c they are in control of a business? No. See the above statement. We already have this infringement built into the caps on individual donations. So...no real change here...

I mispoke then. I think the organizations should lose their 'voting' power as they are NOT citizens. So no political contributions. I addressed this with the concession to allowing anyone to publish anything on behalf of their candidate up to the limits of individual campaign contributions...

Oh yeah, I know that. What's your opinion of this, outside of legal standing at present, from a moral point of view? And I'm not completely sold on this portion myself, but I wanted to have a way to ensure that each election didn't become national. That the elected officials are actually...

I'm of the belief that we erred when we granted 'personhood' to corporate entities. And PACs don't have to have lots of people donate to them, they just needs lots of money. PACs are often how the wealthy get by the individual limits on donations.

@Bacle We already limit political donations in size. That's completely legal for some reason. But you can get around this if you get boat loads of money and form a PAC. So...how is that equal before the law? Pretty much been my main problem with PACs/Corporate donations/Union donors.

What in there specifically limits free speech?

I've been thinking about ways to keep local races local and state races at the state level, as well as a way to limit the money laundering that goes on in political fund raising. 1. Only individuals may make political donates to a maximum of $5,000 per race (note that I did not say per...