General Question

Drgrafenbergmd's avatar

Will third party candidates be helped by the relaxation of corporate campaign contributions?

Asked by Drgrafenbergmd (387points) February 12th, 2010

Won’t relaxing corporate donations actually give some third party candidates a fighting chance? It seems to me that they stand more to gain than the politicians who are already backed by mainstream companies.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

35 Answers

ETpro's avatar

No. It would cost way to much to build a third party to the point of viability. It will be all about getting electable candidates who are willing to play ball elected.

Pazza's avatar

Wouldn’t it be more prudent to make it unlawful for any corporation to fund any political campaign, since it is a conflict of interests between the people and the corps?

SABOTEUR's avatar

@Pazza Yes.

Ladies and gentleman, your vote has just been sold to the highest bidder. Good day!

wundayatta's avatar

One can only hope so, since it would likely be to the advantage of the Democrats. Big money is generally conservative, and a third candidate on the conservative side is likely to take more support from a Republican than a Democrat. The big money might cynically attempt to support a liberal of some kind in order to split Democrats and let a Republican win, but I’m not sure that the demonic pleasure involved in employing such a tactic would get them to overcome their aversion to spending money to support humanistic and health causes.

lilikoi's avatar

I agree w/ you, @Pazza.

Somehow I do not see major corporations backing a third-party candidate in my lifetime. It will take a lot of tiny companies’ support to equal that of a single major corporate player, I would think.

Cruiser's avatar

Campaign reform is the only way to leveling the playing field but old school Washington would never vote that kind of necessary reform into law.

Campaign spending limits and limits on contributions are what will prevent the 800 million campaign insanity like what Obama did to buy his presidential election. Our current political system supports the candidate with the most money wins. Completely out of whack with the will of the people.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

With this recent Supreme Court decision, you are going to see the final smothering of all voices except those of the two main parties which, in practice, will become increasingly more difficult to differentiate. The exception being, if a third party candidate is backed’ by a corporate sponsor as a dark horse in response to a loose canon Republican or Democrat that has deviated from the corporate line and needs to be replaced.

Our founding fathers warned us that Democracy requires constant vigilance, but instead of being on guard, America sat in front of TVs mesmerized by American Idol while the thieves came through the front door and stole our democracy.

SABOTEUR's avatar

Damn @Espiritus_Corvus! You ever consider running for office?

Cruiser's avatar

@Espiritus_Corvus I disagree…the supreme court decision did nothing to change the way corporations currently sponsor ads or create new ways they can operate. They only confirmed the status quo. Nothing has change no new powers have been created and there is still ample room for PAC, religious organizations, universities, blogs, door to door canvasser’s and tea party movements to voice their opinions. You got something to say??? The First Amendment is still alive and well protecting your right to do so.

SABOTEUR's avatar

@Cruiser Yeah, but unless you’ve got the money and the nfluence to back “your voice”, you’re wasting your time. I seem to recall voters backing the President’s plan to overhaul health care prior to the election. We see how far that’s gotten.

Cruiser's avatar

@SABOTEUR I understand your frustration but that has little to do with the question here of corporate influence over today’s political issues. Voters were lulled by him into promises of hope and change on a number of issues even emptying their bank accounts and maxing their credit cards to support these seemingly certain promises.

SABOTEUR's avatar

True, @Cruiser. And our President was naive to believe the American people would work in unison to send the message to our elected officials that we supported the platform for which he got elected. He learned the hard truth that Americans have little interest is consistently working together to make things better for everyone. We are much more interested, as @Espiritus_Corvus said, in voting for the next American Idol.

This lackadaisical attitude on the part of Americans make it a cake walk for corporations to influence politicians to pursue their agenda, regardless of whether or not it’s good for the country. We’ve already demonstrated that the most we’ll do is shack our fist, cry foul, and make sure our cell phone bill is paid.

Politicians weren’t listening to the public prior to the Supreme Court decision. Now it’s open season for them to flagrantly do whatever the hell they want.

And get paid for it.

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

Yes, of course it will.There will be some third party voices that corporations will agree with.The fact of the matter is,alot corporations tend to give equally because they don’t want to be caught on the wrong side.My opinion is that 3rd parties don’t have a snowball’s chance.

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

@Cruiser -Money is not always the deciding factor.Ideas are what drive people in and out of office as evidenced by the elections in VA,NJ,MA.If money was the only issue,ideology wouldn’t matter a whit.
Obama was elected by a willing press who never exposed his ideology for what it is.If people knew he was a Radical Socialist,no amount of money cvould have put him where he is today.
Ideology rules the world.

SABOTEUR's avatar

Ideas may be what drive people into and out of office but canvassing for money is probably 75% of what politicians do after they’re elected into office. Money is not an issue at all…it drives the issues because politicians must do something for the money they receive. So if they aren’t getting money from us, whose issues are being promoted?

How Obama being a “radical socialist” has anything to do with the corporate agenda being promoted now and long before Obama came into office, is beyond me. More of that gobble-de-goop that sounds intelligent, but doesn’t mean anything. While we’re hear finger pointing and name calling, corporate executives are wining and dining off of tax payer dollars because we’re too ignorant to do anything about it.

Cruiser's avatar

@SABOTEUR Again I will partially agree with you…but the big issue I see is all the big league campaigns are directed towards survival of the party. Today on Meet The Press…Joe Biden commented on how the Democratic party is going to pay big time for the collapse of support for Obamas hope, change and health care reform. He clearly didn’t give a shit that we as people get good solid programs out of our government and was more worried about the head count come November. Pay attention to the details and strategy of these 2 parties as candidates are selected not by their ideal or ideology but who is most appealing and electable. Warren Harding comes to mind as a perfect example of election by appeal over substance.

Cruiser's avatar

@lucillelucillelucille Sorry there Lucy…those elections were not won by ideas….they were won out of collective disgust from being lied to. All 3 elections had less than ideal candidates much like our last presidential election and the candidate with the least amount of bad press won. The current 2 party system all but suffocates anything resembling a solid idea that is not beholden to big corporate interests, pork projects and re-election designs. Ideology will get you a cup of coffee at the internet cafe and a pretty second place ribbon.

SABOTEUR's avatar

@Cruiser “Survival of the party” is the single most detrimental factor in America’s political system, which makes it so much more egregious because it’s painfully obvious. No politician is exempt; and when I hear someone on line parrot the latest talking points from either party, it makes me want to throw up. I don’t care who’s in charge! I just want these elected officials to behave like adults and find a mature way to work together for the benefit of everyone.

Power, money and prestige has subverted the goal of elected officials to work for the public. A third party system sounds like a great idea, but who’s to say that too won’t get sucked into the system of needing to court corporate interests to stay in office? I hate to say it, but after seeing how efficiently the current President’s agenda became lost in the quagmire of political bull crap, I’ve just about lost all faith in the American political system. People are worried about our giving away our rights over this and that, but the truth is, we gave away our rights the moment political offices became “full-time” jobs.

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

@SABOTEUR-I stand by the premise that ideas make the politician-and *keep them in office.As I said earlier,Obama the Radical Socialist was elected because he has a willing ans non-investigatory press along with the money.If the American people had an understanding of his ideology,no amount of money could have bought him that seat.This country is not Socialist.

SABOTEUR's avatar

Fine. We’ll agree to disagree.

Cruiser's avatar

@SABOTEUR Quote: I just want these elected officials to behave like adults and find a mature way to work together for the benefit of everyone.”

Oooooh serious wishful thinking….I think we need an intervention here! ;)

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

@Cruiser-You made my point.He wasn’t elected for ideology.He was elected because he was charismaticwith a willing press against a candidate whose own party finds distasteful.McCain was a weak alternative and people voted based on platitudes and vague rhetoric.Based on the elections in VA,NJ, MA,and others I have seen in my lifetime,no amount money will save a Radical Socialist.xoxo

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

@SABOTEUR -Will this reflect badly on my birthday present?;))lol!

ETpro's avatar

@lucillelucillelucille The press electing Obama is pure nonsense. If it were true, then why wouldn’t the Supreme Court decision allowing corporations to buy up and control the press be a problem for American Democracy? In fact, it is a problem—as in end of story.

Obama was elected because of his charisma, yes, but also because of what he advocated. And you need to look up the term radical socialist before tossing it around so blithely. He is no such thing. He’s still dong his best to save the capitalist system that the previous administration nearly wrecked beyond repair.

SABOTEUR's avatar

See related question: Can They Do That?

Cruiser's avatar

@lucillelucillelucille I was referring to your original statement Ideas are what drive people in and out of office as evidenced by the elections in VA,NJ,MA.” and “Ideology rules the world”

If ideology was the deciding factor Obama would have lost miserably. It’s all about the money. Obama won because he bought the election with his 800 million dollar war chest that bombarded us with sound bites and pretty pictures. Again if it was all about ideals even Palin could have slaughtered BO in the election. Sorry Lucille…money rules the world always has and always will.

ETpro's avatar

@Cruiser Actually, it was his campaign platform the won for Obama and that platform attracted tons of small donors which finally attracted some big donors as they got the sense he actually was going to win.

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

@ETpro -I repeat,he had a willing press who refused to vette his past and allowed him to get away with platitudinal rhetoric unchallenged.As for radical Socialist,I stand by that term.
@Cruiser-We did not know his ideology during his campaign,now did we?The press was backing a Democrat and refused to accurately show Obama for what he is.The sound bites and pretty pictures were enabled by a willing press.You don’t vote for the Vice-President ,btw ;)I believe, if the press done their job honestly,no amount of money would have allowed a Radical Socialist to become President….unless the “Dead Vote” counted as in past elections.Barry won’t be re-elected.Have a cookie ;)

ETpro's avatar

@lucillelucillelucille Ha! Like “Drill baby drill” isn’t platitudinous rhetoric. And like the vast right-wing noise machine doesn’t even exist—that durned librul press conspired to let elect Obama. What a hoot!

Oh, and there were never any mentions of “pals around with terrorists.” and Reverend Wright’s rant never made it to the TV tune night after night. Riiiight. Far-right, in fact. So far right, it’s wrong.

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

There is no misunderstanding of what “Drill,Baby,Drill!” means.“Change” has still to be defined by this administration.Although judging by this administration’s attempt at hi-jacking healthcare,banking,manufacturing,the First Ammendment,the American people now realise what this Socialist meant by “Change”.
It wasn’t night after night with the Reverend Wright or Bill Ayers.Those who spoke of them in the press,discounted these affiliations.Also those in the press who attempted accurate reporting of these ties were marginalized and referred to as extremists,zealots and “birthers”.He has had to fire two known Communists from his administration within his first six months in office and he is still surrounded by Socialists.That’s your “Change”.and what the hell is “Hope” supposed to mean??

Cruiser's avatar

@lucillelucillelucille I don’t disagree with your premise of your argument but again stress Obama’s ginormous campaign war chest was sufficient to overwhelm even the most strident critic of his baseless campaign promises. I gave up throwing shoes at my TV early on the the process as my arms were just getting too sore. I love cookies!

ETpro's avatar

@lucillelucillelucille & @Cruiser Poor babies. For one time out of decades, the Republicans actually got outspent and that constitutes being in Wall Street’s poscket (where Republican war chests have always come from) and at the same time being a socialist. Like I say, what a hoot. The more you argue, the more you contradict yourself.

Cruiser's avatar

@ETpro I give a rat’s ass about Republicans and even less about Dems…fire the whole lot I say. In the mean time just admit it, you miss Bush!! Just say it!! lol!

ETpro's avatar

@Cruiser Ha! I miss George W. about like I missed my appendix after the pulled them out of me in the process pf perforating. Good riddance. Glad to be rid of them before they killed me.

Cruiser's avatar

@ETpro That is harsh! Correlating George W with a liberal appendix is very harsh indeed! lol!

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther