Should this party keep accepting corporate PAC donations?

[Ken Burch]

Given the role corporate money has clearly played in corrupting the health care debate, as well as what it has done to our principles on most economic issues, can corporate donations to our party still be considered, in any real sense, a good thing?
Was it worth electing people as Democrats, backed by corporate funding, who vote against the interests of rank-and-file Democratic voters on virtually every issue that matters?

(poll amended to reflect corrected information passed on by other posters)

[Selatius]

1. The bigger question is why private donations are allowed in public elections at all.

It should be a public system funded by taxpayer dollars. How many representative republics use publicly funded elections to see who is most worthy of a particular seat of office? As long as the system is private, this health care bill or any other bill should be the best that we could really manage.

[Ken Burch]

2. Agreed

n/t.

[WeDidIt]

4. The SCOTUS has ruled that the first amendment demands that private donations

be allowed in public elections.

If you don't like that, get a movement together to amend the constitution and alter the first amendment accordingly.

[Ken Burch]

5. Actually, our party could refuse to allow Democratic candidates

to accept funds from corporate PACS. That would be a party rule, and thus not covered by the First Amendment. Given that the effect of corporate PAC money in American politics has been unambiguously negative, could you really object to that?

[WeDidIt]

7. If the Democratic PArty did that

The Democratic Party would be incapable of competing in elections any longer and would be relegated to permanent minority status.

The Republicans would achieve a super majority at all levels of government and would then be able to amend the constitution with whatever whim strikes their fancy at any time.

Nice sentiment, but your demands are unrealistic.

[Ken Burch]

8. You are assuming popular feeling can never defeat money.

That's totally defeatist.

We don't have to accept moderate corruption just to survive as a party.

[WeDidIt]

9. You're living in a fantasy land if you think elections aren't all about money

You're being naive. Money is EVERYTHING in elections because elections are 100% about marketing, and marketing costs money.

Your dreams of an electorate capable of doing more than sit in an easy chair and drool while watching Dancing With The American Idol are foolish in the extreme.

[Ken Burch]

10. Following your argument, we should just give up.

That's what accepting money-based politics means-checking your soul at the door of power.

And in case you haven't noticed, the country is in REVOLT against corporate control of life. The people are still enraged at the no-strings attached, no-questions asked bailout of the arrogant bankers. We can USE this moment to DEFEAT money politics.

But you'd rather give up and accept the status quo forever. That's what playing money politics and settling for only barely incremental change means.'

It's because we've done it YOUR way that we have people like Lieberman and Nelson and their puppetmasters running the show.

[WeDidIt]

11. Politics means checking your soul at the door

Absolutely 100% correct.

If you cannot compromise your principles, you're a hindrance in politics.

That's how it works.

BTW, there is no revolt. Nobody in the streets. Hell, the closest thing to a revolt lately ahve been the teabaggers and they're revolting over the government trying to take power AWAY from corporations.

So again, your dreams of a polity who grapple with facts rather than react to whatever pablum is spoon fed them via 30 second sound bites is foolish in the extreme.

[Ken Burch]

12. In order to have principles to compromise, you have to DEFEND those principles sometimes

The acceptance of corporate money means NEVER defending them.

It gives us power without principle, which is worse than NOT being in power.

[WeDidIt]

13. I'm not afraid of trying to change things

I accept the reality of the conditions on the ground.

Obama had no choice but to cut a deal with big Pharma and the insurance companies. Had he not, they would have buried him ten times worse than they did Clinton via a marketing barrage the likes of which have never been seen. By the end of it Obama would have been impeached and convicted.

That's how powerful the money is. That's the reality of the conditions on the ground. That's why all political change in history has been incremental.

If you can accept the reality and move on to effect what incremental changes can be achieved, you will have arrived at adulthood in the polity. Otherwise, you're doing nothing but fantasizing and masturbating.

[WeDidIt]

3. Other - Corporations are prohibited from donating to parties and federal campaigns.

Corporations can form PACs and a PAC is limited to $5000 to a candidate and $30,000 to a party

So you should be fighting against taking PAC money, but then the PACs formed by politicians to move money between themselves and the aprty would have to go too.

[Jamastiene]

6. What sucks is that we need

REAL Campaign Finance Reform before we can get any other truly representative Reform, including health care.

As it stands now, it's Government Of the Corporations, By the Corporations, For the Corporations. And you can bet they are only thinking of their own $$$.

It's dirty. It's disgusting. Yes, it has always been to some extent, but now it's totally out of control to the point of tyranny.

[Turbineguy]

14. The way they're going

all they'll get is PAC and corporate money.