Campaign Finance Reform Debate and Poll
SHOULD WE HAVE NEW CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM 

PRO

Political Debates and Polls Forum

CON

Google

Youdebate.com Polls
SHOULD WE HAVE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM  ?

YES
ACLU RECOMENDATIONS
NO


More Political

Debates and Polls

 

More Government

Debates and Polls

 

For Debates and Polls

On All Topics

YouDebate Home

Suggestions & Criticisms

YouDebate E-mail

 

 

 

 

 

COMMENT 1

IT TAKES LOTS OF MONEY TO RUN FOR OFFICE. THE MORE MONEY THE BETTER THE CHANCES.

 

COMMENT 2

lawmakers in 1974 passed legislation limiting donations FOR candidates RUNNING for federal office. BUT LOOPHOLES HAVE BEEN FOUND, ALLOWING SPECIAL INTEREST TO DOMINATE THE POLITICAL PROCESS.

 

COMMENT 3

POLITICIANS ARE COURTING ORGANIZATIONS LIKE TOBACCO LABOR AND THE NRA, INSTEAD OF THE VOTERS. HOW MUCH TIME HAS CLINTON SPENT RAISING MONEY.

 

COMMENT 4

RIGHT NOW THE DEMOCRATS ARE FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM WHILE THE REPUBLICANS ARE AGAINST IT. THE REASON FOR THIS IS THE Republicans raised $549 million in campaign '96, at least 50% more than the Democrats.

 

COMMENT 5

The REPUBLICANS would like to see a ban on labor spending compulsory union dues on political activities. BUT The Supreme Court has ruled that unions and other groups can run as many ads as they want expressing their views on issues, so long as they don't "expressly advocate" a particular candidate.

 

COMMENT 6

IT SEEMS THAT WITH ANY RESTRICTIVE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM POLITICIANS WILL STILL FIND BACK DOORS. MAYBE WE SHOULD repeal all existing federal limits on how much money individuals or parties can contribute to candidates, and establish a campaign finance system that relies solely on disclosure of big CONTRIBUTORS. THIS WAY AT LEAST THE VOTERS CAN SEE WHO'S GETTING WHAT FROM WHOM.

 

COMMENT 7

The ACLU suggest public financing, improving certain kinds of disclosure requirements, adjusting existing contribution limits, providing vouchers for discount broadcast and print electoral advertisements, reinstating the tax credit for political contributions, extending the franking privilege to qualified candidates, requiring accountability of and resources to the Federal Election Commission -- do not run afoul of the First Amendment.

 

COMMENT 8

The House is scheduled to take up campaign finance reform in the coming weeks. The leading bill would ban the use of so-called soft money that national party organizations raise on behalf of their candidates. It would also limit independent organizations from raising and spending money on ``issue ads''. Republican leaders have put obstacles in the way of the measure. The House Rules Committee, which sets the terms of debates, has made 10 amendments aimed at making the bill unpalatable to Democrats.

 

fact 9

9-14-99 the House of Representatives passed the Shays-Meehan Campaign
Finance Reform bill on a bipartisan 252 to 177 vote. Now the debate moves to the Senate, where a majority of Senators is on record in favor of the bipartisan McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill.  But a handful of Senators dedicated to preserving the current access and influence buying game in Washington  remains determined to kill the bill by resorting to obstructionist, filibuster tactics.

 

CON 10

Sen. Orrin Hatch said Monday that a campaign finance reform effort by fellow Republican senator and rival presidential candidate John McCain would starve the GOP of money for elections. A bill by McCain that is pending in Congress would ban the unlimited ``soft money'' contributions that corporations and other organizations make to political parties.

 

CON 11

Sen. Orrin Hatch  claimed the bill would allow traditionally liberal interests such as labor unions and environmental groups to send unlimited sums of money to the Democratic Party.

 

fact 12

The bill would ban union, corporate and individual ``soft money'' donations to political parties. Independent expenditures by unions or corporations for such things as political advertisements would be permitted. There is no consensus on which party would suffer more under the bill by McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis. McCain says it would hurt Democratic fund-raising efforts at least as much as the GOP's, because both parties get roughly the same proportion of corporate contributions.

 

fact 13 10-13-99

Trying to break a Senate deadlock and attract new Republican support, McCain and Feingold have dumped the restrictions on issue ads, which opponents said were an unconstitutional hindrance of free-speech rights. Left intact is the bill's ban on unregulated ``soft-money'' donations from corporations, labor unions and individuals that go to political parties rather than individual candidates and are used by parties to push their candidates.

 

fact 13 10-19-99

For the third time in two years, supporters gained a Senate majority of at least 52 votes but were unable to get the 60 votes needed to break a Republican-led filibuster and force a direct vote on the measures.

 

fact 14 10-29-99

A bipartisan Senate coalition offered a new proposal for overhauling campaign fund-raising laws, hoping to break the stalemate that has doomed the issue in recent years. The bill would raise individual contribution limits from $1,000 to $3,000 per candidate, per election; from $20,000 to $60,000 per year to a national party committee; from $5,000 to $15,000 per year to any other committee; and from $25,000 to $75,000 total each year to candidates, national parties or PACs.

 

 

 

 

Click Here to add Your Thoughts to these Debates