Comments about ‘What others say: Affirm money limits’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Oct. 8 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

Right and Left, Dems and GOP - Unite

Lets get the money out. I am astounded that ANYONE would not be for getting the money out of politics (except those giving and those receiving)

Look at opensecrets

in 2012, the health industry spent almost $550,000,000 dollars lobbying.
The finance/insurance/real estate industries spent almost $500,000,000.
Defense contractors spent almost $150,000,000.

And yes, I include union money in my rant. Union $$ corrupt also.

How can this not cloud our congress decisions?

This is pathetic that we allow this kind of money to taint our system.

And yet, I predict, that several comments on this story will defend the practice.

Defending money in politics astounds me.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Money is doing horrific damage to our politics; it does not represent people. I hope a way can be found to remove it from the process.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

Apparently we need some sort of Constitutional amendment to get the money out of our political process.

Think Republican's will ever agree to such a thing?

No chance.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

How about this for a solution. To make it so that things are "fair", when there are 2 or more canidates we pool their money together. So, if the one canidate gets $10 million in contributions, and the other gets $8 million, they combine their resources and each can spen $9 million. Now, if a 3rd canidate is on the ballot, but only gets $3 million in contributions, they each will end up with $7 million to spend. Now it is fair, and no canidate can be purchased by an individual or corporation. If you try and buy 1 canidate, you really are giving money to all canidates.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

Red,

Better than what we have today. It would greatly reduce the money donated.

The politicians would never go for it.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "Worries about the corrupting power of money have sustained federal limits on individual contributions . . . ."

Yeah, among incumbent, left-leaning, trade-union-supported politicians, who have name-recognition, regime-controlled media, and fat, ethics-impaired trade unions on their side. They're the only ones that have any serious worries about campaign contribution limits.

That's why they illegally and unconstitutionally tried to disadvantage their competition with rules that benefit only them. And, why the Supreme Court ruled they can't continue to break the law.

Real Americans believe, at least based on results, there's actually too little money in politics. Way too little transparency, as well.

We're also convinced that, once the full impact of Citizens United is felt, Congress and the Executive Branch will look and think more like real America looks and thinks.

And -- chilling to liberals -- less like the leftist face of current politics.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments