Campaign Finance Reform... Tax Contributions

[BeFree]

So, when corporation 'A' gives 1M to candidate B.

The tax on that 1M would be 50%, or 500K.

That tax money, 500K, would go directly to the other candidates in the race.

[unblock]

1. the real problem is outside spending and this would only exacerbate it.

this would certainly keep direct spending to a minimum, but candidates would simply ask people to contribute to a pac / super-pac / whatever instead. then some "completely unrelated" organization would do all the real spending.

real campaign financing/reform is a HARD problem to solve, because highly motivated, creative minds are always at work trying to skirt the rules. consequently, the rules need to be bullet-proof.

the best start, imho, is simply for the government to fund the campaigns, and far more significantly than at present (and lowering the bar for third parties as well). that way, even the underdog or third party candidate actually HAS some money with which to make their views known.

[BeFree]

2. Tax every contribution

Tax every pac funding or bank deposit of such groups.

They can tax every gallon of gas; they can tax every bit of money that goes toward campaigns of political nature.

The real problem is that political campaign contributions are bribes. And such bribes are now legal.

In this plan the government would be funding the campaigns. Just that the funds raised would come from those that have the money and want to spend it to influence the government.

It would only be fair.

[unblock]

3. outside spending is, by definition, NOT a campaign contribution.

it's an "unrelated" entity doing something that may or may not help a particular campaign.
it may be issue-related rather than candidate-related.
it may be negative (e.g., anti-gingrivitis but without mentioning rmoney)

it's hard to tie that to a particular campaign, so if you were to tax it, to which campaign would you allocate the proceeds of the tax?

also, keep in mind that we're talking about political speech, which goes to the heart of the first amendment.

we certainly need serious reform, as what we have amounts to legalized bribery. but it's not an easily-solved matter.

[BeFree]

4. Campaigns are campaigns

issues are issues.

In every campaign race for each election the funds used in that campaign would be taxed at 50% and disbursed to the other candidates in that race.

What you want is that taxes from gas, and incomes and etc., would be used to finance campaigns. And add to the deficit.

This idea is a direct tax on incomes of campaigns for elections to constitutional offices. Think of it like a lottery tax or other such taxes on prizes. Only the money collected would be directed back into the campaigns.

It would be self-financing of public financing. And it would even the field.

As for political free-speech, the giver could speak freely that their contribution went to candidate A. This idea is a tax on money, not on speech. It is a merely a tax on income.

[unblock]

12. you're missing my point entirely:

the campaigns themselves will practically stop spending, or reduce it to the bare minimum actual candidate expenses, such as transportation, for instance, can't be avoided.

but virtually all major expenses, such as tv ads, could be run by "outside" entities such as pacs and super-pacs -- not the campaigns themselves.

[former9thward]

5. It has been illegal for a hundred years for corporations to contribute to federal candidates.

It still is. They don't do it in the way the OP suggests so there would be no tax collected.

[BeFree]

6. What?

I don't think you know whereof you speak. Corps have been contributing to campaigns in limited amounts.

So now, under this new plan, they could contribute unlimited amounts. Only now that would be taxed 50% and those funds would be spread to the other official candidates in that race.

It is the best way to finance public-financing of campaigns.

[former9thward]

7. No, I'm sorry but you do not know what you are talking about.

Corporations and unions are prohibited to give money directly to federal candidates. Individuals from companies, unions or other interest groups can form Political Action Committees to push their message, although corporations can't contribute directly to the PACs either. If you want to inform yourself about this I suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee

[BeFree]

8. Techinically you are correct

But in real life, that is blowing smoke.

The corporations have worked around any blocks. And you know it.

What this plan does is tax donations to campaigns. CAMPAIGNS. Campaigns in general. Campaign funding in any shape or form, except that which comes from the government.

Indeed, it would make contributions truly free and open, just taxed.

[former9thward]

10. In election law anything that applies to corporations applies to unions also.

So a monetary value would have to be assessed for volunteer's time at unions which would then be taxed. A very messy concept I think. I favor full disclosure on contributions and then let anybody contribute what they want to whoever they want. With the internet this is very easy to do.

[BeFree]

11. No, just money

Cash. Volunteer hours are free-speech.

Money is not speech.

If there is, as you suggest, 'full disclosure' of contributions, then taxing that contribution would be very easily accomplished.

[Skidmore]

9. Shuster just reported that one man (Sheldon Adelson) and his wife contributed a total of $10M

between them to Gingrich's effort.