Campaign contributions

[makhno]

What is the rationale behind allowing entities other than individual citizens to make political contributions? What constraints on the democratic process would a citizen-only regime with a hard limit on individual contributions per election cycle/candidate impose?

This isn't something that I've researched much, so I'll be interested in hearing some arguments in support of non-citizen political contributions.

[cally]

1. Only individuals can contribute to a Presidential candidate

The limit is $2,000 per person. Incumbents and Republicans are able to raise more this way. Look at *, he's had 3 plus years to fundraise while Kerry has far less time.

The loopholes come with the ability of individuals to donate up to $25,000 to the national party and I think there is no limit on donations to state parties.

Then there are all the PACs and 527s. It's legal to donate what you want.

Foreigners cannot donate to campaigns in the US. Foreign companies operating in the US can as far as I know.

I think we need federal funding of elections and outlaw all individual and corporate contributions. Require TV stations to give a limited amount of free air time.

[makhno]

2. Yes

I think we need federal funding of elections and outlaw all individual and corporate contributions. Require TV stations to give a limited amount of free air time.

That's something I definitely support. Why not engage the media in the democratic process in a non-partisan way, for a change.

While incumbents might have an advantage, if we limit political contributions to citizens, perhaps a candidate's funding will more accurately reflect the true size of his or her base and popular support.

What is the rationale behind allowing PACs and non-profits to contribute to candidates' campaigns or political parties? Are parties allowed to funnel some of their money to candidates? Support such as the ability to speak at a party-owned or rented local or endorsements by other party politicians should be about it.

Thanks for your time. I think this is one of the fundamental issues in this country's democratic process.

[cally]

3. PACs and the party organizations

are required by law to not coordinate with the campaign. Parties do provide lots of services to the candidates. Mailing lists, press facilites, GOTV efforts, etc. PACs and others cannot contribute to the campaign but they can run advertisements on their own. The rationale is freedom of speech. An environmental group wants the ability to focus on their issue.

Only citizens can directly contribute to the campaigns. If the US eliminated all PAC and 527 money--which I doubt the Supreme Court would allow-then * would have a huge cash advantage. Remember any incumbent has greater ability to raise money.