Should Democrats swear off corporate money and influence?

[yurbud]

Poll question: Should Democrats swear off corporate money and influence?

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Obviously I vote for # 1, but along with major election reforms

at the same time: http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm

[Freddie Stubbs]

2. The law prohibits corporations from donating to federal candidates

[Zhade]

3. What, you think they OP doesn't know that?

The post asks about corporate influence, not corporations specifically. But then, you already understood that, didn't you?

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. The OP sepcificlly mentions "corporate money"

[Zhade]

8. And corporations, or groups of same, don't have PACs?

Please. You're not even trying here.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. Corporations are not allowed to give money to PACs that donate

to federal candidates.

[cestpaspossible]

7. You could repeat that 1000 times a day for a year

and some people still won't hear it.

[Zhade]

9. Probably because it's a strawman.

The OP speaks of corporate influence - this includes, say, lobbyists and PACs for the industries corporations run.

The OP does NOT say "individual corporations". If it did, Mr. Stubbs would have a valid point. As it is, his point is at best extra information, not a correction.

[punpirate]

11. Doesn't prohibit them from providing assistance...

... in other ways.

Corporate money hasn't left campaigns, or ceased to influence politicians. If anything, its influence is greater, and more subterranean, than before McCain-Feingold. So-called 527s have more clout now than ever before.

As just a small example, why is it do you think that corporations were coughing up the maximum amount requested for Bush's inaugural? Because they wanted to liven up DC a bit?

Or why it is that corporate donors principally finance the major party conventions? Civic-mindedness?

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11511

This doesn't even address money funneled to campaigns through lobbyists via supposedly independent sources.

Money pays for access, and that's the real problem. And corporations have the money to pay for that access, unlike you or I.

If the Democratic party wants to once again represent ordinary Americans, it can't serve two masters. It can't continue to recruit and develop politicians who, like the Republicans, spend all their time raising money and then trading those financial favors for access by corporate lobbyists.

[K-W]

16. lol, hillarious

Yah, theres no corporate money in politics. What were we thinking.

[Zhade]

18. Some desperately want us to believe that is the case.

After all, who would enrich the DLC without corporate contributions? Certainly not the grassroots who see the DLCers for what they are.

[Zhade]

4. KICK

Stop the profit-whoring!

[me b zola]

5. Kick

For the return of the Democratic Party to the common people!

[Alizaryn]

10. I often wonder how many people would automatically vote for

a candidate, who had a REAL chance of winning (which at this point is being a Democrat or Repub) who could campaign with "NO CORPORATE DONATIONS ... ZERO...ZILCH".

If I were anywhere around the middle, even leaning toward the other side I would definitely decide based on just this issue.

[cestpaspossible]

14. That's every candidate.

There's no denying that the undue influence and unrestrained out of control power of corporations is the number one problem facing us, but it is important to keep our facts straight as we fight our battles.

Corporate donations are illegal. Every candidate who has not broken the law (that's gotta be said because of folks like Delay) has run with no corporate donations, zero, zilch.

[Us vs Them]

12. Can we successfully fight funded by grass-roots alone?

If so, I think this might be something worth looking into. By denouncing all corporate funding, we may automatically highlight the fact that the other party is corrupt in embracing corporate influence.

[Zhade]

19. Yes. DFA showed the great promise of small donations.

It can be done. Some just don't WANT it to be done.

[ClassWarrior]

13. The answer is YES. The question is HOW?

NGU.

[K-W]

17. by running economic populists

who are smart enough to outalk republicans