OPP Poll . .........Outside money: Should outside ( out of state) money determine who will win the racein that particular state?

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

Should outside ( out of state) money determine who will win the racein that particular state?

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

proud republican wrote:

Should outside ( out of state) money determine who will win the racein that particular state?

If you made it illegal it would just get laundered through entities in the state.

The ONLY political donation I ever made was to an out of state senate race. It was only $20 but I liked that I had a voice in another state considering it was the Senate.

The Senate was corrupted by the 17th amendment. That needs to be repealed. The only way to make money less of an issue it to make politicians more immediately touchable by the v**er.

My opinion,

Liberty Tree

BigMike wrote:

If you made it illegal it would just get laundered through entities in the state.

The ONLY political donation I ever made was to an out of state senate race. It was only $20 but I liked that I had a voice in another state considering it was the Senate.

The Senate was corrupted by the 17th amendment. That needs to be repealed. The only way to make money less of an issue it to make politicians more immediately touchable by the v**er.

My opinion,

If the 17th amendment is repealed then state legislature e******ns will just become more corrupt.

hdjimv Loc: South Dakota

BigMike wrote:

If you made it illegal it would just get laundered through entities in the state.

The ONLY political donation I ever made was to an out of state senate race. It was only $20 but I liked that I had a voice in another state considering it was the Senate.

The Senate was corrupted by the 17th amendment. That needs to be repealed. The only way to make money less of an issue it to make politicians more immediately touchable by the v**er.

My opinion,

I think the 17th amendment is ok as modified but it needs to have term limits added to make it better. Two term max like the presidency would be just fine.

Noraa Loc: Kansas

hdjimv wrote:

I think the 17th amendment is ok as modified but it needs to have term limits added to make it better. Two term max like the presidency would be just fine.

Liberty Tree

hdjimv wrote:

I think the 17th amendment is ok as modified but it needs to have term limits added to make it better. Two term max like the presidency would be just fine.

Term limits would be a tremendous improvement, but the powers that be would never support it.

Noraa Loc: Kansas

Liberty Tree wrote:

Term limits would be a tremendous improvement, but the powers that be would never support it.

It could be done without them with a convention of States.

hdjimv Loc: South Dakota

Noraa wrote:

It could be done without them with a convention of States.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

proud republican wrote:

Should outside ( out of state) money determine who will win the racein that particular state?

No, the v**ers in each State should make that decision. Unless someone is bribing folks to v**e for a particular candidate, what difference does the amount of money a candidate has make?

Of course, if we think that the majority of Americans are uneducated, ignorant, and apathetic, v****g for the name they hear the most.......................

Noraa Loc: Kansas

lpnmajor wrote:

No, the v**ers in each State should make that decision. Unless someone is bribing folks to v**e for a particular candidate, what difference does the amount of money a candidate has make?

Of course, if we think that the majority of Americans are uneducated, ignorant, and apathetic, v****g for the name they hear the most.......................

How about Bloomberg spending 100 million of his own money in Florida.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Noraa wrote:

How about Bloomberg spending 100 million of his own money in Florida.

So? Are the majority of Floridians uneducated, ignorant and apathetic?

ImLogicallyRight

The Representatives and Senators of a State are supposed to represent that particular state in the Federal Government. Money ultimately t***slates to v**es over time, and it effects the thinking of the States v**ers through ads and such, and organizations built within the State. And for in State offices, like Governor and States Attorneys, they also are there to work for the people of that State and outside money is just as bad within State offices. So, yes, outside money should be banned within a State. They are supposed to work for us and not our neighbors.

Unfortunately, outside money can buy ads that go on TV for example, that is sent over the air and into other States. Impossible to ban. But Cable and the Internet can be regulated within a State to only include in State money supported ads.

All organizations that put out ads etc. should have to be publicly prominently identified along with the ads as to where people can find out who is paying for these ads and how much money is from in State and out of State and from who.

Logically Right

Kevyn

proud republican wrote:

Should outside ( out of state) money determine who will win the racein that particular state?

Republican appointees on the Supreme Court came to the extra constitutional conclusion that corporations were to be treated as people and that money was equivalent to speech. This was cemented in the Citizens United decision that effectively eliminates any campaign finance reform or t***sparency. The republicans loved this as corporate money poured into their campaigns unchecked. Now that Trump is toxic and the Democrats are beating the republicans two to one fundraising they understand the ramifications.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

BigMike wrote:

If you made it illegal it would just get laundered through entities in the state.

The ONLY political donation I ever made was to an out of state senate race. It was only $20 but I liked that I had a voice in another state considering it was the Senate.

The Senate was corrupted by the 17th amendment. That needs to be repealed. The only way to make money less of an issue it to make politicians more immediately touchable by the v**er.

My opinion,

That was an interesting fact... Thanks

roy

Kevyn wrote:

Republican appointees on the Supreme Court came to... (show quote)

You very correct,now they have to use lies ,proaganda, half t***hs,and conspircy theories to try and win e******ns,they may win like that ,but what kind of government do you have? They wanted like you have said the money flowing,now they don't like it.Let's take citizens united back before the Supreme Court ,and see how honest Mrs amy is.Anybody with any common sense knows that corporations are not the people.and if we have an honest court that rules by the constitution ,it will surely be overtuned.