GIVE ME ONE GOOD REASON RIGHT NOW WHY DONATING TO POLITICAL PARTIES SHOULDN'T BE ILLEGAL

No that's a terrible idea because they can't be swayed by anything else either.

A party is just a collection of individuals who are involved with politics in some form or another. When you take this into consideration your question essentially becomes why should it be legal for one individual to give money to another individual for political purposes. One answer to that is freedom of association. Its my money and I should be allowed to do whatever I want with it, which includes support for somebody running for offices.

Another reason is that it enables the poor and lower classes to theoretically run for office. Not everybody can quit their job and drop whatever they're doing and run for mayor because they don't have the income to sustain themselves and their families for a campaign, but with the ability to donate to others for political purposes anybody can run for office if they can persuade others to support them.

I just think the rule should be that politicians can only be publicly funded, like they used to be.

I don't know how things used to be but how would that work today? Would anyone who decides to office be eligible to receive equal public funding? Are we going to have to give lots of taxpayer money to every jackoff who decides to run for office? If not then who decides who gets money and how?

The way it used to be is the way Bernie did it (including the "keeping it for yourself if you lose" part). Basically every person just mails in like 30 bucks to the candidate they want to him.

want to win*

candidates should only be able to get money from their constituents.

all candidate political related spending and donations must be documented and open to the public.

all political donations must be itemized on your income taxes.

companies, trusts, unions, and other legal entities that are not biological humans, should be barred from giving money to candidates.

political parties must spend equally on candidates. if you have three party members in a primary. they all have to get the same amount of spending from their party.

ballot access should be free. if you want to run for an office. just fill out a form and you're on the ballot. president should be a federal issue. one form granting access to all state/province ballots.

Why do you double space individual sentences? You know you can let them run together like this right?

Its a reddit thing
dont try to change it, it saves some of us time - we can ignore it

Not him but no clue. I only do double spacing when talking about separate points since that's what you're supposed to do in writing, but everything he talked about goes together.

It's a new thing though. I've only started noticing it the past year or so. Do they teach kids how to write paragraphs anymore?

I think its because redditors are typically incels/shit genetics so with poor eye sight its easier to read with lines further apart
of course reddit having conformist hivemind culture the others soon follow suit

This. If you don't feel like someone in public office should be accepting large sums of money, don't vote for them.
If the rest of your compatriots think bribes are fine and dandy, you have bigger problems.

There no “natural rights” and the burden of proof doesn’t exist outside of a judicial process, stop this retarded meme.

*There are no

Well, 90% of elections are won by the side that spends the most money on the campaign.

Definitely. So long as he doesn't actually control the other peoples votes.

If only every politician were an advisor like Joe. Right now only Joe's have a vote, and Joe's are selected by a board of existing Joe's, who can decide to fund them or not, and if they decide not to we never hear of Joe.

...

>there are no "natural rights"
True
>burden of proof doesn't exist outside of a judicial process
False, it's a simple principle of logic

>Well, 90% of elections are won by the side that spends the most money on the campaign.
First, prove it. Then, prove it's bad. All you're saying is that it's advantageous to be well-funded, which is redundant.

Okay. So buying politicians loyalty, okay or no? Should a politician divide their attention between donors and voters? Should donors have to be declared?

Love it!

Doesn't that discriminate against poor people in the same way private donations do?

>First, prove it.

You can look it up as easily as I can.

>Then, prove it's bad. All you're saying is that it's advantageous to be well-funded, which is redundant.

I'm saying that donors decide who to fund, so they decide who is well-funded, so they decide who wins.

Doners only have one vote. Politicians can pander as much as they want to doners and still lose elections. It would be advantageous not to differentiate between doners and non-doners, only voters.

>MONEY WINS THE RACES
>MONEY IS UNFAIR
Food wins races in that candidates who starve to death can't win. Are we going to start talking about food being unfair?

>implying it always hasn't been

Because otherwise only rich people would be able to afford entering politics?

Only if you think that the parties and donors shouldn't be able to decide the election beforehand.

Since you think money SHOULD determine elections, I can't convince you by saying votes SHOULD. But maybe you don't always agree with the people who have the money and would like your vote to matter.

It's better if they just own less wealthy politicians?

What if Joe's rich and is able to spread his influence using his own capital? Like say via a youtube channel or television program.
What difference does it make?

So long as all he's doing is advising. This doesn't work alongside the representative system, Joe always ends up just paying representatives directly.

>Since you think money SHOULD determine elections
I didn't imply this any more than I implied food should determine elections.
I think the reality is that food and money are advantageous to have and that's all there is to it. If you really think it's MONEY that's the problem, in and of itself, as you implied with your infographic and your language, then you should advocate that only people with empty bank accounts and kitchens should be able to run, legally.

Like it or not, corporations are the lifeblood of a modern nation. Therefore, it only makes sense to allow them disproportionate influence in government. Even China understands this now.

Who says politicians have to be financed by the wealthy? Read up on the history of the labor party in the UK. The two main parties of the 19th century were the liberals and the conservatives, and they were all part of the UK's elite/nobility. The reason for that was that there was no remuneration for entering politics, so politics was the exclusive preserve of those wealthy enough not to have to work.

Read a book you historically illiterate nigger.

Yes. They're advantageous. If Joe spends more money he is more likely to win. He always spends money on the pro-money candidate.

I would rather not pick between 'the existing representatives and ex-representatives select every new representative prior to the voter choosing one' or 'the wealthy donors select every new representative prior to the voter choosing one'.

You must see how they are the same thing.

JOE ISN'T RUNNING
HE'S JUST HELPING OUT
YOU'RE ALL OVER THE PLACE MAN I CAN'T TAKE IT

The difference is that money comes into new hands all the time. The pool of previous representatives is more limited, also, they only have one vote.

Joe in this scenario is buying a politician, not buying himself a seat in parliament.

We can then vote between the ones he has selected, and be confident that your neighbors will vote for the one he has funded more.

Maybe if you already always agree with Joe you'd think this was good.

Describe your ideal system, then?

Right. Do they ever just vote, or will they always try to buy a politician, as they have done?

It's just that historically they always act the same way, and demand the same things of the government. To make it impossible for them to lose money, not always successful but they have better state support than anyone else, and this is common to all richfellow voting; and to pass those laws that make it easier for them to MAKE money, here is the only place they really fight, since they're all in different industries. But even then we get the finance industry on top of everything, and they're all voting in the same direction there too.

freedom of speech etc

Voters vote in votes. One vote each.

Not 'pick someone to vote on your behalf, here are ten candidates who each half agree with and fully agree with some richfellow' but 'there is a vote in parliament so you vote on it'.

Like a democracy might be.

I don't have to agree with a donor to support his freedom to use his own means how he pleases. I might as well protest everyone faster than me from participating in marathons I want to run.

So every single action of a government has to be agreed upon by a nationwide vote? Do you think that it would be an efficient system?

How about agreeing with your representative when they cast your vote?

And also, have you ever heard of what "mob rule" is?

Just like right now, new bills would require a vote. Unlike right now, the citizens could cast that vote, not just a few hundred super-citizen representatives.

Or are there some things you don't want the government to do but you think that the government should do anyway?

I've heard of it but there is no such animal.

I think that forcing citizens to vote on the thousands of decisions that governments take is incredibly retarded. You think citizens should vote on whether to increase subsidies for beetroot farms?

I think you're a high schooler who hasn't thought things through. If you're older than 20 I pity you.

Because they'll do it anyway but then we won't know about it which will only cause even greater harm to the political systen.

>there is no such animal
Then you live in denial.

Ah, you're not talking about the election of the representative, but his actions in office. Bribery is a different question from campaign funding.

80% of the population agreeing to kick 20% of the population to the curb is classic democracy.

>forcing

Are people forced to vote right now?

>You think citizens should vote on whether to increase subsidies for beetroot farms?

Who votes now? Representatives. So if they're actually representative, then people will vote how they would vote.

Literally the only drawback to actual democracy is that there are too many people to bribe. You either have to go basic income or fuck off. I understand completely why richfellows would hate this. I can't understand why random user would hate this. You trust Clinton that much, user?

I'm talking about both. You voted for a representative who then voted against your interests. Why don't you care about casting your real vote on that issue?

Then it must be far, far worse to allow a few hundred people vote on the fate of millions. Is it?

>Are people forced to vote right now?
No, you misunderstood. I'm talking about the practicality of the thing. Organizing nationwide elections is incredibly hard. Do you think we should organize several such elections every day? Are you retarded? Or just insane? Or just underage?

>Who votes now? Representatives
Yes, that's the point of a republic, moron.

>blablabla UBI
Okay you're just another commie Bernout. Go protest against the patriarchy or something.

classic Veeky Forums autism.

>.
>.
>.
>.
this is fine

but not this
.

.

.

.

if you're on an island alone. your natural rights are what ever you can do, because no one is there to infringe upon you.

>No, you misunderstood. I'm talking about the practicality of the thing. Organizing nationwide elections is incredibly hard. Do you think we should organize several such elections every day? Are you retarded? Or just insane? Or just underage?

Then select a representative who can cast your vote in your place. If you disagree, you just take the vote back and use it your way.

Could you explain why you would prefer your representative to sometimes vote against your interests?

>Yes, that's the point of a republic, moron.

It is. To reduce the number of voters so that vested interests can control the government. The worst thing for a republic is if people want to actually vote.

>Okay you're just another commie Bernout. Go protest against the patriarchy or something.

You misspelled cathedral.

To stop rich donors from supporting anti-competitive laws (laws that make it so that you can't be a richperson yourself), you must first have a constitution that bars anti-competitive laws in the first place, and judges that enforce that constitution.
The problem is that banning donors from donating is anti-competitive.
I understand your quandry, OP. Very chicken or the egg.

>Then select a representative who can cast your vote in your place. If you disagree, you just take the vote back and use it your way.
That's the concept of holding elections every 4 years you fucking idiotic nigger.

>Could you explain why you would prefer your representative to sometimes vote against your interests?
It sometimes is in the interest of the state. The average person is a moron, politicians at least have high IQs.

>It is. To reduce the number of voters so that vested interests can control the government.
No, to delegate government to a select group of intelligent specialists to run things properly, who are chosen by the people.

>That's the concept of holding elections every 4 years you fucking idiotic nigger.

And then they vote against you sometimes. That's the point of letting everyone vote, so they aren't expected to support policies they don't support.

>It sometimes is in the interest of the state. The average person is a moron, politicians at least have high IQs.

It is always in the interests of the state, since every representative votes against the people who voted for them, never mind their constituents who didn't vote for them. A representative represents solid support for the status quo of the whole nation, and a fraction of the people they're supposed to represent.

>No, to delegate government to a select group of intelligent specialists to run things properly, who are chosen by the people.

But they aren't chosen by the people. They're first selected by the establishment, and then people vote for the one that disagrees with them least, if it's even possible to know how they might vote down the line, which it isn't.

Why would you want people to vote for representatives at all if people shouldn't be trusted to vote at all?

>Well, 90% of elections are won by the side that spends the most money on the campaign.

It's just as possible that popular candidates get the most money b/c people want to contribute to their efforts. Same can be said about corporations, w/e. No one wants to back a loser.

>You voted for a representative who then voted against your interests.
Not necessarily. A donor's involvement in the election of that representative doesn't necessitate his bribery.
But let's say it did in some case - would that representative get as many votes next season after proving his infidelity to the voter base? I don't think so. Moreover, if bribery was suspected we could take him to court and make sure he doesn't run again. The donor as well, would be barred from donating, having been proven to be a briber, but not a moment before.

Then another potential briber may show, and another potential weak representative. Making party donations illegal wouldn't stop this, since the bribery doesn't occur until after the election.
The fact that people often do dishonest things with their money doesn't mean we need to outlaw their free use of money. This is unjust to those who never had such intentions.

Seriously, you think every representative votes how everyone who voted for them would vote? Every representative you've ever had has voted the way you want for your entire life, whether you voted for them or not? You trust that they only lie to you and vote against your interests when it's better for everyone else?

Then let everyone vote so bribery is too expensive.

>you think every representative votes how everyone who voted for them would vote
I didn't say that. I said the donor doesn't necessitate it. If you want to talk donors, talk donors.
If you want to argue against representative democracy, I think you should make a new thread.

Let everyone vote on what?
Are you talking about cosmopolitan, millenial voters in new york, who outnumber farmers in kentucky, deciding their policies for them?
Or are you talking about each state having it's own system, with greater separation from the central government?
Because I can agree with that.

You can't talk donors without talking about how candidates are selected before they are elected.

Also, sorry I keep assuming you're american. I remember you were talking about parliment before. Same principle though. Central government functions worse for large populations especially when coupled with absolute democracy.

Because making shit illegal just because you don't like it, or I don't like it, or that guy over there does not like it, leads to pretty much everything being illegal.

>Let everyone vote on what?

On the things that representatives vote on.

>Are you talking about cosmopolitan, millenial voters in new york, who outnumber farmers in kentucky, deciding their policies for them?

Are you saying that farmers should have extra votes? Obviously not, but are you saying that representatives from places with farmers should use the presence of farmers and their minority status to secure extra votes in government?

>Or are you talking about each state having it's own system, with greater separation from the central government?

The logical end point of that is for each person to ultimately have one vote. Otherwise you're just engaging in fancy gerrymandering.

But your statement had nothing to do with pre-election candidates. You were talking about their behaviors post-election, and in general the potential pitfalls of representative government.

Why would central government function worse? The same bills are being voted on, but this time by the electorate; the same civil servants are working for the government. The only difference in this thought experiment is that representatives cannot decide to use your vote against you.

Let's be real, you are saying it is okay for a representative to lie to you - but not that your neighbor votes against you.

That's still very vague, my dude. Representatives come from all over the country.
I think it'd do you well to read about the Connecticut Compromise on the drafting of the US constitution. People much smarter than either of us have already had this debate.

A donor selecting a candidate implies the donor is happy with them. We know that representatives will not make voters this happy. You don't really have any choices when you vote, but to vote for someone who is already more aligned with their donors than they ever will be with you.

This will influence how they act post-election. If they want to be re-elected, they have to please the donors first.

People who got to write the law already had this debate, and amazingly they sided with themselves.

Is there any good reason that every individual state should not have a 'Connecticut compromise' among their counties?

I still say that if you add up all of the 'but they deserve extra votes' at once, you still come out with each person having one vote. You have to exclude certain interests if you want to end up with your special interests having an extra vote, or you have to just agree with the people who have better votes right now.

> candidates should only be able to get money from their constituents.

No, you’re violating my freedom of association and right to pooling our money to support the NRA, LGBT or whoever, who then support candidates with agree with.

You’re making the political process wholly financial, with the largest bank accounts having the most power and that leaves 99% of the population outside the political process.

Elections would be nothing more than 1%ers funding the campaigns of 1%ers.

> all candidate political related spending and donations must be documented and open to the public.
> all political donations must be itemized on your income taxes.

Sure.

> companies, trusts, unions, and other legal entities that are not biological humans, should be barred from giving money to candidates.

Again; fuck off, see above.

> political parties must spend equally on candidates. if you have three party members in a primary. they all have to get the same amount of spending from their party.

On the one hand, political parties should be free to do as they please, as they are private and NOT government entities but on the other hand, if they want to have their own rules and pull political shenanigans like “super delegates” and such to stack the deck, they should have to pick up the check for their cost of their private elections.

Political parties who want to use their own rules, should be required to buy their own voting machines and rent private halls to hold their private corporate “elections”.

Why are tax payers covering the bazillion dollar costs of an election, when we’re not allowed to make the rules for that election?

> ballot access should be free. if you want to run for an office. just fill out a form and you're on the ballot. president should be a federal issue. one form granting access to all state/province ballots.

This is a non-issue for any remotely viable political party. Making it free to everybody would turn elections into a joke with millions of retards throwing their hat in the ring.

Why should I pay for that shit?

How about putting promotional caps on campaigners?

The more money you have, the more you will be noticed because the more promotional material you can run. Not so if everyone gets an equal voice through promotional caps.

>amazingly they sided with themselves.
Lel half the people in the room wanted to kill the other half.

Why not have a fucking cap on election spending like so many other places do.

>spend your money
Not their money.
Corporations aren't people.

>Literally the only drawback to actual democracy is that there are too many people to bribe.

Except in you system, even fewer people will be voting than ever, because no one if gonna feel like voting for every decision, so they'll stop voting altogether.. Voting would completely lose all intrinsic value to citizens, so politicians can easily just offer a handful of people a few bucks to vote for what they want and that will decide most laws.

The problem is basic human incentives. If a person is given a lot of money by a single individual/company and not the electorate as a whole, then human nature states he will look out for the interests of that individual/company over the electorate. It's insanely rare that we get a candidate who was funded in this way and then goes "nah, fuck those guys, I'm doing what's right anyway"

>politicians at least have high IQs.
Oh how I wish that was true.

>You’re making the political process wholly financial, with the largest bank accounts having the most power and that leaves 99% of the population outside the political process.
We used to have caps on donations for this exact reason, before the limit got raised to "infinity"

There should be some kind of rule that no one who would actually want the kind of power public office entails is allowed to run for it.

There was a Douglas Adams quote about that
>“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
>To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
>To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.