View Single Post
Old February 5th, 2013 (7:33 AM).
FreakyLocz14's Avatar
FreakyLocz14 FreakyLocz14 is offline
Conservative Patriot
Platinum Tier
Join Date: Jun 2009
Gender: Male
Nature: Jolly
Posts: 3,481
Originally Posted by Mr. X View Post
A total ban is needed though.

This won't deny those groups a voice in government - the separate people that are a part of this group or corporation can still donate separately. All this does is prevent a single person, usually the CEO and/or leader of the corporation and/or union from using the resources of the group to suppress the ideals of the member.
Banning direction contributions to candidates won't prevent unlimited independent expenditures on their behalf. Since independent expenditures are considered free speech in praising or criticizing a candidate, it would take a constitutional amendment to limit them. California has some of the strictest campaign disclosure laws in the nations for non-federal elections (federal elections in all states are governed by federal law), but Citizens United changed them somewhat. For example, a Bay Area candidate for county supervisor who plead no contest to shoplifting was attacked by what appeared to be a homemade sign calling her a thief that was displayed in front of a local supermarket parking lot. All campaign material must usually come from a campaign committee that is registered with the FPPC, but the sign was not investigated. It would likely have been considered protected speech.
Reply With Quote