Because it worked for Obama and not for John or Hillary.

I think we need to eliminate these "telephone" donations as well.
Political campaigns shouldn't be allowed to use "technology" to their benefit.
No TV, No radio, only in person rallies with no P.A. system and no artificial lighting.
Definitely no planes, trains, or automobiles to get candidates places.
Use of the wheel is still up for debate.
All donations must be made in precious metals in person.

Or ... is it just technology that "scares" people that needs to be eliminated?

The disclosure rules need tweaking, that's all. The article quotes someone who says that the last time small donor thresholds were established, it was the'70's. The internet changes a lot of stuff and we've seen how it's changed donating.

I don't know...Over a billion has been spent between the two candidates and the congressional candidates. And no matter who wins, a lot of that money will have gone toward attack ads that will have inspired hatred for the new US President. $1 billion toward manufactured hate. It's pretty sad, really.

Exodus2001: Because it worked for Obama and not for John or Hillary.

What they're REALLY afraid of is for independants and third parties starting to pull in the big internet bucks. If a third party candidate manages to get comparable fund raising, you'll see the fed crack down on internet donations so fast it'll make your head spin.

What's sickening is that you need to raise at least 100 million to even have a chance at the presidency.

Weaver95: What they're REALLY afraid of is for independants and third parties starting to pull in the big internet bucks

Bingo! Any time the two parties agree on "campaign reform" it is always to the detriment of the third parties. They know that if people became aware of how farked up our system is and that there are more palatable alternatives the people would flee en masse to third parties.

dillenger69: I think we need to eliminate these "telephone" donations as well.

I think we should get rid of money altogether, and go to a strict barter system where we donate farm animals and produce.

/does anyone have change for a cow?

Weaver95: Exodus2001: Because it worked for Obama and not for John or Hillary.

What they're REALLY afraid of is for independants and third parties starting to pull in the big internet bucks. If a third party candidate manages to get comparable fund raising, you'll see the fed crack down on internet donations so fast it'll make your head spin.

RON PAUL!

/sorry, couldn't help myself

eddyatwork: Weaver95: What they're REALLY afraid of is for independants and third parties starting to pull in the big internet bucks

Bingo! Any time the two parties agree on "campaign reform" it is always to the detriment of the third parties. They know that if people became aware of how farked up our system is and that there are more palatable alternatives the people would flee en masse to third parties.

That's already happening. Ron Paul raised FAR more money than he was supposed to have been able to gather. The Republican machine practically ensured he'd be locked out of the nomination process no matter what, but the sheer amount of money Ron Paul raised certainly got the attention of the party leadership. The big fear is what happens when someone in a third party starts gathering support and money enough to challenge the Republicrats domination of the political process in this country.

so, money is free speech when it comes from corporations, but when a person wants to donate online to a candidate, thats not free speech?

Right.

Teh tubes are a huge potential threat to those in power. Campaign donations are just the first step. It's not inconceivable that some day, the people will demand a much more direct involvement in the day to day running of the government. Once the Internet is truly accessible to just about everyone, there's no reason why house bills couldn't be voted on just like Fark headlines. Halve the number of House members and give the plebes the other half of the vote.

SilentStrider: so, money is free speech when it comes from corporations, but when a person wants to donate online to a candidate, thats not free speech?

Right.

I can't wait for the FEC to start cracking down on political discussion boards like Fark, Daily Kos and Free Republic.

SilentStrider: so, money is free speech when it comes from corporations, but when a person wants to donate online to a candidate, thats not free speech?

Right.

You know, I have given this some thought - I really think there needs to be an end to corporate donations altogether. If you want to donate a gajillion dollars, fine, but do it out of your own pocket, not your company's pocket. No anonymous donating, either. Complete transparency. Totally idealistic and not pragmatic, sure. But I can dream. :)

eddyatwork: What's sickening is that you need to raise at least 100 million to even have a chance at the presidency.

Why is that sickening? When you consider how massive this country is, seems like it would cost a ton to campaign.

Weaver95: That's already happening. Ron Paul raised FAR more money than he was supposed to have been able to gather. The Republican machine practically ensured he'd be locked out of the nomination process no matter what, but the sheer amount of money Ron Paul raised certainly got the attention of the party leadership. The big fear is what happens when someone in a third party starts gathering support and money enough to challenge the Republicrats domination of the political process in this country.

Here's my question - Paul raised all this money, but what the hell did he do with it? He certainly didn't seem to spend in any useful way. There was no conspiracy against him which held him down, he just ran a shiat campaign.

DamnYankees:
Here's my question - Paul raised all this money, but what the hell did he do with it? He certainly didn't seem to spend in any useful way. There was no conspiracy against him which held him down, he just ran a shiat campaign.

I did a Google, and the last thing written was that he wanted to put the $4 million into a for profit publishing company that would publish educational material that reflects his Libertarian leanings. (^)

Interesting thing in the article - apparently in April, there weren't enough people on the FEC board to do anything about anything. I wonder if that's changed since then.

/please excuse any crazy typos, on a borrowed laptop

DamnYankees: Here's my question - Paul raised all this money, but what the hell did he do with it? He certainly didn't seem to spend in any useful way. There was no conspiracy against him which held him down, he just ran a shiat campaign.

I'm not so sure about the conspiracy bit. There were more than enough hints and unanswered questions regarding matters procedural to make me wonder if the republican leadership decided to pull a lot of dirty tricks to make sure McCain got the nod and Paul didn't get close to a win. I don't think Ron Paul ran a crappy campaign, I think he's a relatively honest guy who played in a rigged game against a dishonorable opponent.

Snarfangel: I think we should get rid of money altogether, and go to a strict barter system where we donate farm animals and produce.

/does anyone have change for a cow?

sure
I will give you 1000 of these here "tokens" and you can use them later to barter for other goods and services

/money is just a way for no one to have to make change for a cow

What? Some people buy Visa or MasterCard "gift cards" and use fake names to funnel money to candidates online? My my, imagine that!

but but but
the GOP has been arguing that money is speach
therefore they should shut the fark up

what really needs to be done, is to arrest the people who made donations under false names for credit fraud

TADA - problem solved

plus - is this ANYTHING other than sour grapes?

plus - is hillary upset because she was jsut too stupid to do what howard dean had done in 2004?

I loved the fact that millions of small donors gave money.
I loved that the traditional rubber chicken fund raising is dying out.

fraud? of course, that's what laws and disclosure is all about
so you find that some tard donated more than legal?
fine arrest them
so you find that someone used a false name to donate with a credit card?
fine arrest them

ban online donation?
are you insane? what a bunch of ludites

what the GOP should be arguing at this point, is that money is speach and there should be no limit
full disclosure, enough said

we would have had the mmcain-exxon campaign
and been making fun of that

clearly, while there are "privacy" and card number security issues involved, a person currently is limited by law how much they can donate
you need to match both cards and names
(yes I know there are issues with families having the same card number with diff names on the cards ...)

and sure, now they have banned credit card donations on line?
YAWN - the SMART candidate will set you direct withdrawal from your checking/saving account ...
tada

god I hate these people

go to fec.gov and look up some donors ....
you will find that BOTH parties gave tons of refunds ...
was this because there was fraud by the donor, meh doesnt reall matter

GOP is jsut sore that this year obama took the bank and ran away with it

/too many words, not enough brakfast

Pope George Ringo: What? Some people buy Visa or MasterCard "gift cards" and use fake names to funnel money to candidates online? My my, imagine that!

interesting
but in the final analysis, so what?
maybe it is time to remove all limits and increase reporting requirements?
all donations require a SSN
all donations without a valid SSN get sent back
all donors can look up their own SSN to see if someone is making fraudulent donations using their own number

Okay... let's say this whole faceless thing and not knowing who the money is coming from thing has merit, I don't... but for the sake of argument, let's say it does.

Okay... so nobody can tell where the money is coming from. That includes Obama. Isn't the point about donations being limited is that one could ask for favors in return for large donations. So... if these donations are in fact, "faceless" then nobody is asking for favors and the very reason to be upset about donations is moot. Or am I missing some aspect to that which undermines my train of thought on this?

JohnnyC: Okay... so nobody can tell where the money is coming from. That includes Obama. Isn't the point about donations being limited is that one could ask for favors in return for large donations. So... if these donations are in fact, "faceless" then nobody is asking for favors and the very reason to be upset about donations is moot. Or am I missing some aspect to that which undermines my train of thought on this?

you're missing the fact that people who aren't in power are able to raise money and be competitive with people who are already in power, thus threatening their hold on power.

Weaver95: eddyatwork: Weaver95: What they're REALLY afraid of is for independants and third parties starting to pull in the big internet bucks

Bingo! Any time the two parties agree on "campaign reform" it is always to the detriment of the third parties. They know that if people became aware of how farked up our system is and that there are more palatable alternatives the people would flee en masse to third parties.

That's already happening. Ron Paul raised FAR more money than he was supposed to have been able to gather. The Republican machine practically ensured he'd be locked out of the nomination process no matter what, but the sheer amount of money Ron Paul raised certainly got the attention of the party leadership. The big fear is what happens when someone in a third party starts gathering support and money enough to challenge the Republicrats domination of the political process in this country.

The local GOP here required its candidates to take a loyality oath back during the primary. They were trying to screen out RON PAUL supporters.

Snarfangel: dillenger69: I think we need to eliminate these "telephone" donations as well.

I think we should get rid of money altogether, and go to a strict barter system where we donate farm animals and produce.

/does anyone have change for a cow?

I have some magic beans.

I dont , I like donating on the internet its easy and frankly its quick.

JohnnyC: Okay... let's say this whole faceless thing and not knowing who the money is coming from thing has merit, I don't... but for the sake of argument, let's say it does.

Okay... so nobody can tell where the money is coming from. That includes Obama. Isn't the point about donations being limited is that one could ask for favors in return for large donations. So... if these donations are in fact, "faceless" then nobody is asking for favors and the very reason to be upset about donations is moot. Or am I missing some aspect to that which undermines my train of thought on this?

I would guess the point is, if Exxon want to donate a billion to the next presidents campaign, then normally you expect it to be visible in the funding. If that presidential candidate wins and creates lots of pro-Exxon legislation, it will bring his ethics into question (ahahaha). If the same billion appears and no one knows where it came from (honest guv!) then it is harder to see who is buying what laws and for how much, as you can (more or less) now.

That's the only reason why I contributed this year. I don't do post offices and stamps anymore and I feel weird giving some person on the phone all of my information.

Golly jeepers! What will Mitch "Money Is Free Speech" McConnell have to say about this!

This is good.
I have to keep going to my parents' to pull the bills out of their CD drive that they're trying to send to McCain.

To donate money to a candidate, we should be required to notify officials of our intent by telegraph and then take the train to Washington, DC so we can pay in person using silver and gold coins.

Colour_out_of_Space: This is good.
I have to keep going to my parents' to pull the bills out of their CD drive that they're trying to send to McCain.

hehehehe

Conservatives for years have called liberals whiners for complaining about one abuse after another, but I've never seen such crybabies as the conservatives have been in this election cycle. Man up. You're losing, big time, and it isn't because of ACORN or Duran Duran of Albuquerque's donations. It's because you suck.

You can game the system IRL as well. The method is not the issue here.

Internet donations have meant a shift in which candidates are competitive and shifts their priorities. Now, many candidates have less of an interest in keeping the corporations happy and more of an interest in keeping the public happy. They have a wider base of people who matter, from those who gave $10, or $20, or bought a tshirt, to those who maxed out and gave several thousand dollars.

I'm sure the democratizing of financial support of candidates threatens established interests in both parties. And that's GOOD. Candidates should have an interest in being responsive to the regular people who support them and not to corporations with big budgets for buying influence.

More stringent rules on internet donations are probably fine. You can change the methods, but it's impossible to go back to real-life only donations: people donating online have involved more people in political activism and political fundraising than ever before. It would be insane to go back to how things used to be, and I don't think it would actually be possible for people to get back in that mindset.

Clawed Le Mew: Conservatives Republicans for years have called liberals whiners for complaining about one abuse after another, but I've never seen such crybabies as the conservatives Republicans have been in this election cycle. Man up. You're losing, big time, and it isn't because of ACORN or Duran Duran of Albuquerque's donations. It's because you suck.

FTFY

Out of hundreds of millions of dollars donated by tens of thousands of people, we're supposed to be concerned about 123 foreign nationals and 17 grand?

Close the obvious loopholes, but small internet donors have already tilted the balance of power back to regular people.

What a crappy idea.

A brief, concise message to the lawyers that want to ban internet donations:fark OFF.

This is America. It is a government by the people and for the people. Internet donations give us busy people a chance to donate when we have a second. It gives the public more of a voice than has been heard in a long time.

Weaver95: What they're REALLY afraid of is for independants and third parties starting to pull in the big internet bucks.

"Independents"... but otherwise, This.

Please, whatever we do, lets not empower the populace

MrGumboPants: Out of hundreds of millions of dollars donated by tens of thousands of people, we're supposed to be concerned about 123 foreign nationals and 17 grand?

Close the obvious loopholes, but small internet donors have already tilted the balance of power back to regular people.

THIS⁹

pwned by intarwebs!
In this case they ARE like a truck ... VRRM, POW!

I think we should do it the old fashioned way. Instead of the voters giving money to candidates (wtf is THAT all about?), the candidates should offer to purchase the votes of the voters directly, without wasting all that air time and making us all put up with all their BS tv ads. I'm thinking $25 to 50 per voter or so

How will the candidates get the money to pay the voters, you ask? Simple. Require that the candidates spend their own money for that. It will insure that only very wealthy candidates can run for office, which is a good thing.

Michele Bachmann:
If I am stupid on TV, the Internets will get me!



Just a matter of time now....

Or just ban donations if you don't live in the state the race is happening in.

/Internet donations for nationwide races are still fine.
//No on 8.

Weaver95: I can't wait for the FEC to start cracking down on political discussion boards like Fark, Daily Kos and Free Republic.

Wow. In that grouping, us Farkers actually sound like the reasonable moderates...

Weaver95: I think he's a relatively honest guy who played in a rigged game against a dishonorable opponent.

I also think that the corporate overlords told the media to ignore the guy. I really do think he was ignored and smeared the guy because when you listen to him he makes sense. He was the only major candidate who said get out of Iraq, our money is worthless, and that our government should follow the Constitution. No other candidates believe in these things.

Do away with Presidential elections altogether and take bids on Ebay. Highest bid is president and the money goes to pay off the national debt.

or

Have a Cage match and winner of the final smackdown is president. Show the whole thing on pay per view and the money goes to pay off the national debt.

//I've already signed up for the Hillary Clinton/Sarah Palin match.

I think you should only be able to donate through a corporate account from a large corporation. Another thought would be to take welfare money from coloreds and use it for TV ads. Old people don't need medicine THAT bad, so they could use that money for traveling expenses.

Who's with me?

This is farking stupid. You should be able to donate how ever the heck you want. This was not an issue when W had twice the money Kerry did. As for the Independents, get a guy worth voting for next time. You know, non-crazy.