• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Campaign Funding Transparency

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
People have toyed with this idea for a while and it's understandable why this is probably something that will never pass in our government regardless of which group of idiots is in charge. For the past few decades, as business and government have gotten more comfortable spooning each other on the national stage (and eventually moving to anal these past 10 years), it's become quite clear that we need to know which politicians are being funded by which companies. I say this because with a lot of serious issues at hand that affect you and I, we can't be putting politicians in power who are being paid to speak for their corporate masters.

In a humorous way of seeing it, what I would like to see is a sort of NASCAR advertising law for all campaign funding where all the supporters are worn right there on the outside. Not literally of course, but I think it should be public record that every single cent spent on political contributions is thoroughly detailed so we can see which politicians are actually speaking their minds and which ones are just being paid affiliates.

Thoughts?
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
It seems that I'm not as concerned as most about who financially supports which candidate. Voters decide who wins elections, it is not decided by who has the most money. Only idiots vote the candidate that has the best commercials and marketing, but I guess plenty of idiots vote! I would hope most of us vote for the candidates that most closely reflect our positions on issues.

But I do like the idea of having them wear patches sized in proportion to their sponsorship. That would be fun.
 
Last edited:

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
I think you've missed the main idea at hand here, SS.

This isn't some idea targeted at the rich, I'm not sure why money is even being mentioned. What is important is where the money is coming from. Let's say you've got some blowhard using education reform as his major campaign goal and driving force. But then you find out he received a lot of money from a lobby that has been responsible for holding back educational spending and initiatives. Wouldn't you feel a bit betrayed? With this knowledge readily available, we'd have better informed voters. Which of course, is not what politicians want.
 

C-Mach

Registered Member
It would be very interesting to see how much laundering and fraud occurs in political campaign donations.
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
I'm sure they'd find a way to cover their trails by adding some law making paper trails illegal, etc.
 

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
I agree that every cent should be tracked. I don't think we would even need campaign finance laws if every penny a candidate got went into a public database. Let someone take $50M from GE. Getting that level of funding would scare voters away from the guy.
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
I agree that every cent should be tracked. I don't think we would even need campaign finance laws if every penny a candidate got went into a public database. Let someone take $50M from GE. Getting that level of funding would scare voters away from the guy.
I don't think it's about scaring them away really, it's just about making them more honest (and we know how hard that is). Some guy today could stand up and talk about how great big oil companies are but if we were all aware that 90% of his campaign budget came from oil company donations, no one would listen to him and rightly so.
 

MAgnum9987

Do What Thou Wilt
Amen.


This is something I've been thinking for a while but have been timid about saying, but I want to know how much President Obama got from the insurance companies in "campaign contributions" so that he randomly decided to pursue "Universal Healthcare" in 2009.

I don't remember where, but I saw that he got 500K from UBS during campaign season 2008....

Found this on a quick google search
Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets
(source is on bottom of page, for the skeptics out their....)
 

Rapier

Well-Known Member
V.I.P.
It seems that I'm not as concerned as most about who financially supports which candidate. Voters decide who wins elections, it is not decided by who has the most money. Only idiots vote the candidate that has the best commercials and marketing, but I guess plenty of idiots vote! I would hope most of us vote for the candidates that most closely reflect our positions on issues.

But I do like the idea of having them wear patches sized in proportion to their sponsorship. That would be fun.
The problem is that companies often support BOTH candidates. Making it a win win for business no matter which party prevails.
------
Amen.


This is something I've been thinking for a while but have been timid about saying, but I want to know how much President Obama got from the insurance companies in "campaign contributions" so that he randomly decided to pursue "Universal Healthcare" in 2009.

I don't remember where, but I saw that he got 500K from UBS during campaign season 2008....

Found this on a quick google search
Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets
(source is on bottom of page, for the skeptics out their....)


Insurance companies? Have you noticed that seemingly every third TV commercial is an insurance commercial?


Now think about the money laundering aspect. Every penny goes to the mainstream media.

Now think of campaign contributions. Nearly every penny goes to the mainstream media.


Any wonder why the mainstream media gives business a pass and is vociferously anti-union?
------
A quick look around brought this.

Political Giants NBC and Comcast Merge, J Street Demands Refund and More in Capital Eye Opener: January 20 - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets


NBC.jpgcomcastlogo.pngNBC/COMCAST MERGER APPROVED: Federal regulators approved the merger of Comcast and NBC Universal on Tuesday, but both companies will have to abide by multiple restrictions aimed at ensuring open competition.

According to the Washington Post, the merger passed in the Federal Communications Commission by a 4-to-1 vote and the Department of Justice -- it must also grant approval -- -- allowed the deal to proceed. The decisions removed the last regulatory hurdle for both companies, and the merger process is expected to be completed by the end of January.

General Electric -- parent company of NBC Universal -- and Comcast have maintained a regular presence in Washington, D.C., throughout the negotiation process. Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who voiced their displeasure with the FCC's role in the approval process on Tuesday, both received $10,000 in campaign contributions from Comcast during the 2010 election cycle.

Additionally, people and political action committees associated with General Electric and Comcast gave $221,500 and $394,550, respectively, to members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee during the 2010 election cycle.

Through the first nine months of 2010, General Electric spent more than $32 million on federal lobbying efforts -- more than it has during any calendar year ever. The company is consistently one of the strongest lobbying forces in the United States, at the federal level.

Comcast spent more than $8.7 million on lobbying during the same period. Though it is less than what the cable and Internet service provider spent during 2009 and 2008 -- lobbying expenditures totaled around $12.5 million for both years -- Comcast still ranks as the third largest lobbying force within the television, movie and music industry for the first nine months of 2010.
 
Last edited:
Top