Corporations donating to political candidates

Do you support a law that will forbid corporations from makIng donations to political candidates in the US? Do you think this should be part of International law?

Vote
93%
7%
Votes
123
Views
7187

58 Comments

  • Deepak, thank you for joining. We trust voters will take into account the global implications of this question. Everyone, please note that this site will soon include an option for regional concerns in addition to global concerns, so please do not reject ideas on the basis that they are regional.

  • Corporate donations to politicians is nothing short of bribery and corruption.

  • Absolutely Deepak - we need to break the link between the vested interests of corporations and government policy. We need to protect and serve the people not serve them up as fodder for corporations. We need to keep the playing fields level too so small business can innovate and not be suffocated by the power of big business.

  • Yes Deepak, I support this. Let's go global ;-)

  • No idea how you can legislate it internationally. But if you can do it - do it.

  • Certainly.

  • I definitely agree, corporations should not be the ones running the campaigns and putting forward candidates that will serve their interests and not the people.

  • Definitely

  • Government should never be influenced by outside forces, especially by corporations that will basically, turn Governments into prostitutes.

  • I like the coulors and the back ground of ,this page.

  • Yes, and everywhere, yes...idk how effective a law would be.. but it doesn't make sense for corporations to be giving money to political candidates!!

  • This law serves to keep the robber barons in power

  • Yes, I would! By corporations donating they are trying to control government. I wonder if they could set a limit to the donation and also make it anonymous to avoid gov. Preferences to the Corporation.

  • Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!!

  • absolutely governments should be for people not corporations. I have just seen the connections between Monsanto and the US government - disgraceful! I fully support this worldwide.

  • Absolutely yes! In all countries!

  • Agree

  • A thousand times - yes! I wish the rule was that each candidate had a set amount of money that they could spend on their campaign and if they were caught spending any more money than their "allowance" they would be disqualified.

  • I would vote for Sociocraty and Holacraty as new systems of representation ....

  • Just because it would be illegal it doesn't mean they wouldn't fund politicians in secret, away from public scrutiny. It would only make things more shady. At least now it is (somewhat) public knowledge when a corporation endorses a candidate.

  • When government is run by big business, only badness can ensue

  • Yes, no more donations

  • Will stop political interests and one sided political agendas

  • Absolutely, greed and corruption have proven to be the result of destruction to our world.

  • Completely.

  • Absolutely agree

  • I think that if we want a true democracy, then corporate donations must be banned. We know that dollars have a strong voice in politics. It is so strong that it drowns out the voter .

  • Yes, totally think this is needed, and now. All donations are funneled into one campaign dollars pool - from which all candidates get the same amount of campaign money; that would end the desire for politician to take secret donations as someone suggested might happen. Election reform is the only way to give the power back to the people! Power to the People! Peace!!

  • You failed to answer a fundamental question - should national governments, which profess democratic government by consent be permitted to establish onshore and offshore private corporations which are out of the public's purview and scrutiny? The practice of governments establishing private corporations is practiced all around the world and is what makes democracy a myth - a myth which cannot be differentiated from the tooth fairy.

  • Well this is indeed a global problem, and since laws are always broken, it would make a statement to have one, but it would not solve the problem. The very nature of government and why we need it and in what form now has to be challenged.

  • I object because between transparency and other measures such as equal air time to suitably qualified candidates, the manace inferred can be handled more deomcratically.

  • I think that it is far too easy for wealthy entities to launder money into political candidates. I agree, and I think it should fall upon the FBI and CIA (at least in the US) to properly investigate these practices. Maybe then, Mitt Romney's face wouldn't be product-placed everywhere you look haha

  • Good to see real expertise on display. Your contirutboin is most welcome.

  • I object because the problem does not contribute to a solution of the problem. Even after this has passed people will still vote on the face with the most screentime and therefore THIS will accomplish nothing. It is ignorant stating that if this is passed, money won't find it's way to the candidates. AS IF.

  • This won't fix the problem, just adds more regulation.

  • I object because this will not fix anything, in fact it might even make it more unfair for when politicians run against each other.

  • This needs to be passed or we will be even more controlled by corporations

  • Sorry, I object because corporation donations are biggest source of funds for a political candidate. Instead of making a law to forbid corporation donations, there should be a law placing a cap on maximum donations every candidate can receive. This would place every candidate on an equal footing, regardless of the candidates connections.

  • All donations should be banned to politicians. If you support them you vote period.

  • If it’s the inappropriate influence politically, we are concerned with.... then the only answer is... ONE INDIVIUAL [not greater than / no less then] ONE VOTE
    Ensure one vote only can be donated to political candidate per controlled Issue.(period)

  • Yeeeeessss.... totally genius Deepak. But even if we decide that we want to see this idea out there, how can we be sure governments will accept it ? Check my solution to this in my profile. "global democracy by law".

  • I object because it is the right of the CEO to chose where he/she donates their money. However is it up to the individual voter to know the issues, be educated and have formed their own opinion.

  • Sounds good to me! But it would never be implemented. Because, like I've said, governments have an "above the law" attitude now- and think they're an oligarchy that don't have to answer to us "serfs."

  • It shouldn't matter how large the campaign is, or the cost of the campaign. It is the words and lies said that count for votes.
    So In effect the initial political campaign should be capped to the cost of hiring a bus, podium, microphone and speaker.
    The people vote not the corporations. (Or at least that's how it used to be)
    What is the need for corporate donations other than their company's self interest ?
    All year long major corporations have their say through your parliament to make sure that certain rules, regulations and laws are and aren't passed. For the gain of the investors.
    So cause and effect would be in place with abolishing this system loose one and the Financial market bubble would burst. I am happy for both bubbles to be burst.

    Politician's should also not be allowed to have external business influences during their terms. In my country New Zealand nearly all of the politician's have Market shares or business interests (own a business) to supplement their already large government income. This in turn has amounted to our government not increasing the minimum wage to meet the cost of living in over twenty years. As If they do increase the minimum wage the market shares are bound to drop. Wonder if this has happened else where ?

  • Wouldn't the donations become less transparent then ?

  • No, everyone and anyone corporate or private or household should be allowed to support whomever they wish whenever they wish.
    A No- strings attached policy needs to be enforced.
    explain- most make donations with the expectation of something in return. this jeopardizes the integrity of the recipient as now he owes a favor to the donator, creating a spiraling vicious circle of corruption.

  • Its a no brainer realy. But would question the necessity of elections in the first place.

  • Leaders of nations must remain pure idealists. Their power should be of their voice alone.

  • this should be international. in fact, a lot of things must be done when it comes to politicians. Many corporation owners are inside the government. That also is wrong..

  • I object because partys should be financed only from membership fee of the members of that political party - equal fees.
    In my country the political parties set up the candidates to presidence in public election.
    Why I suppose that way ? It's because money can made influence to choose the candidate to election from benefactor like someone, who wants to create a hole in the law for him.

  • I object because in India, it is banned and corporations find illegal ways to make donations. So, banning donations will lead to an increase in corrupt practices which is not good for the society as a whole.

  • If the USA is having an influence on international law then people from the areas effected should have just as much say in American law. If areas are experiencing war because of American influence then the citizens effected by the wars should have as much say in American politics as the corporations supporting the wars.

  • Yes, stop the corruption.

Similar Ideas: