Should political campaigns be required to limit the amount of corporate donations they receive?

Topic:
Law Debates

17 Contributors
in this discussion.

Yes
88% of users

  • I oppose politicians getting unlimited company money, because companies are not people.

    The Supreme Court may have ruled that corporations are people, too, and I can see, to some degree, why they are considered legal entities, like people's estates after they die. But, estates can not vote, and neither can corporations. They have no constitutional rights, and they are not citizens. Therefore, they should not be able to influence elections.

    Yes FlakyHerb64

  • There should be a limit to corporate donations in order to limit their influence.

    I believe that their should be a limit on corporate donations to limit corporate influence on political candidates. Large corporate donations encourage politicians to favor corporations over the people of their district, when choosing what position to vote on. When faced with the prospect of losing millions of dollars worth of campaign donations or angering some voters, too many politicians will choose the corporations. Even if that corporation has no employees or presence in the politician's district.

    Yes TawdryChris

  • Unlimited corporate donations can unduly influence a candidate to vote for that corporation's interests, instead of the interests of the constituents.

    Corporations have more funds, in general, than an individual, and huge corporate donations can create candidates beholden to the corporation's special interests, meaning the individual voter suffers, since without money, their voice falls to the wayside. Government representation means you work for your constituents; the people who elect you. Doing the bidding of corporations, like easing environmental laws for their industry, can lead to public disasters like the gulf oil spill or the Love Canal episode.

    Yes NimbleGreg

  • Yes, because money essentially buys elections and policy.

    In our society and age, elections have become nothing more than a battle of bigger pockets. There is a direct relation between who is elected, and who has the most campaign money. Rich people are more likely to win office than the average citizen. We are represented by only the rich and not the people.

    Yes MarriedKelvin72

  • Political campaigns should definitely be limited in the amount of corporate donations they receive, because it allows an unfair influence of policy.

    Individual citizens are limited as to the amount that they may contribute to an individual political candidate. Given the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations enjoy the right to be recognized as "persons", they should be limited in the amounts they are able to give, the same as other citizens. It is indisputable that corporations donate in an attempt to influence the outcome of elections at every level of our government. This happens at not only the local and state levels, but the federal level as well. To eliminate some of the corruption in our legislative and executive branches of government, it is essential that we remove this monetary influence that corporations can exert. If corporations wish to benefit from the rights of person-hood, they must abide by the same rules that all other people have to follow. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

    Yes FPeyton

  • Corporations and Special interests should be limited

    Our votes in congress are literally being ignored due to the funds these groups are donating to the political parties and to the candidates campaigns etc. Everyone is worried about free speach but corporations are not citizens of the United States and therefore should not have the same rights. They are entities made up of citizens and today in a lot of cases non citizens. If we want the Republic government that we are supposed to be by the people and for the people then we need to protect the rights of the people and the votes of the people not corporations and special interests!

    Yes Anonymous

  • Yes, political campaigns should be required to limit the amount of corporate donations they receive, because this will help keep candidates on more equal ground, and prevent letting money decide who wins an election.

    Nothing is free, and corporate donations always have strings attached to them. But the less they are involved in the political process, the better. By limiting the money a candidate can have to a reasonable amount, it would help level the playing field for all candidates, and prevent the richest candidate from winning so easily. The ideal solution would be not to just limit the donations, but to make them anonymous. That way, the political figure is not obligated to do anything in return.

    Yes H_Baird

  • Yes, because I believe that too many corporate donations lead to corruption.

    Corporations pad the pockets of politicians all the time. Personally, I feel like this makes the politician feel as though he owes the corporation something in return, which would not make it a donation at all. A lot of times the special treatment politicians give these corporations is not in the best interest of the American people.

    Yes 54bIinkPren

  • No, donations are money given freely by choice.

    It's a free country. You cannot rightfully tell anyone what they can and cannot give to another. Even if it is money from a company donated to a candidate, which results in an unfair advantage over another candidate.

    Yes JamesonF

  • Corporations should not run the country.

    If they want to the people in the country should each be able to donate as much as any other person. Campaigns should be for the people, and should be funded by the people, not some fat cats calling all the shots.

    Yes Anonymous

  • It will be motivation for the corruption.

    In the old Lockheed corruption case and so many other famous cases, we know why the political leaders were compelled to take a decision favoring the corporates which were incorrect. Thus happened because they have to get the financial aid from such big and corrupt corporates.

    Yes tafeta

  • I believe political campaigns should limit the amount of corporate donations they receive because it influences politicians to vote on certain issues the way their donors would like them to.

    I believe political campaigns should limit the amount of corporate donations they receive because the politicians are influenced by the amounts they receive from corporations and that will make them vote a certain way on specific issues, which leads to corruption.

    Yes MycCra2ii

  • The amount of corporate donations they receive for political campaigns is not utilized properly.

    Yes, I agree that the amount of corporate donations they receive for political campaigns should be limited. The very fact that the way the political campaigns is conducted and utilized should be limited. Rather than spending the money and corporate donations on political campaign it can be utilized for some other purposes, like eradicating poverty and free medical and health care purposes.

    Yes I0rFashion

  • Political campaigns should not be allowed to take any corporate donations as it encourages special interest decisions.

    Politicians are elected to represent Americans as a majority. The interest of the average American should be the number one priority of any politician. Accepting corporate donations inadvertently encourages special interest decisions in favor of such corporations, even if the decision might be somewhat damaging to the "average" American. I also believe all campaigns should be run with a tax fund that gives equal amounts of campaign money to each politician and it is the only money that can be used in campaigning. If you do this and also make slanderous and negative campaign tactics illegal, politics would finally start heading in the right direction.

    Yes BrianDj

  • Corporate donations should be eliminated completely: the people should elect the candidates.

    Without limiting corporate contributions, we have an unlimited influence of financially motivated public officials. If a company helps a candidate get elected, that candidate more often than not will repay the favor somehow once in office. For the most part, this removes the voting John Q. Public from the process and creates affiliate politicizing. Very undemocratic!

    Yes MarsBIue
Voice Your Opinion
No
12% of users

  • I don't believe campaigns should be limited in the donations they receive from corporations, because these donations help the campaign to grow and reach more people.

    Campaigns need the money that they are given by corporations in order to be successful. They cannot reach millions of people on minimum wage-type donations from regular people around the country, like myself. Their campaign money has to come from somewhere, and our American people can't afford to foot the bill themselves.

    No AboardTod

  • Political speech should not bar any corporate donations to a campaign, specifically since it is a form of Free Speech.

    Corporate donations amount to free speech when they contribute to a political campaign. As free speech, there should not be any method used to limit them. Since one corporation may be involved in greater representation than another, restricting the two to the same amount only hurts the company with the greater business. In other words, it's helping the loser, by giving him equal power and authority as the company that has successfully garnered more customers. This is unfair representation and goes against free speech.

    No Asher Cummings
Voice Your Opinion

Related Debates

Debate Topics

 
 
Should political campaigns be required to limit the amount of corporate donations they receive?
Top of Page
© 2010 Juggle, LLC
All Rights Reserved
Encyclopedia & Reference Resource