Reducing corruption

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Why limit contributions? Such limits only encourage evasion. Taking money out of politics is akin to a prohibition on drugs -- nice intentions but...

I'd settle for an ironclad disclosure rule. If the MP in question is a wholly-owned subsidiary of some Liverpudlian shipping magnate, you ought to know about it. Still might vote for her even so, but at least you'd know. Here, if they're enslaved by the NRA, I'd like to know. Let's me decide if I care.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Why limit contributions? Such limits only encourage evasion. Taking money out of politics is akin to a prohibition on drugs -- nice intentions but...

I'd settle for an ironclad disclosure rule. If the MP in question is a wholly-owned subsidiary of some Liverpudlian shipping magnate, you ought to know about it. Still might vote for her even so, but at least you'd know. Here, if they're enslaved by the NRA, I'd like to know. Let's me decide if I care.

I understand your point, and it's a valid one, save for the lack of options. If Candidate A is enslaved by the NRA, and Candidate B is enslaved by a Union, and I'm not a fan of vested interests, who do I vote for? There may well be a Candidate C, getting by on individual donations, but chances are I've never heard of them or their policies because they can't afford the exposure. I end up going with a heavy heart to the least bad option and spend the next few years watching them shovel money and favours to their mates.

I'd keep the ironclad disclosure rule, and add a maximum contribution from any source to $10 (or equivalent). If all the members of the NRA (as an example) wish individually to contribute their ten bucks because of the quality for the candidate, fair enough.

[rory_20_uk]

Getting politicians to cut donations... Right up there with getting meth addicts to start afresh.

$10 a head would then become such tactics as every union member donates £5, as agreed at the AGM and the union handles the transfer; no donation by industry, but they choose to run pseudo-independant advertisements in a synergistic way. or place assets at the party's disposal rather than funds.

I'm for the "full disclosure" option. The internet is pervasive and if you're unhappy with options 1 and 2 there are ways the 3rd candidate can get his message out - perhaps not to the extent as Obama, but using the same methods.