This website is no longer actively maintained
Some material and features may be unavailable

Unlimited spending

Should corporations be allowed to spend unlimited money on political campaigns?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...



  • Anonymous

    Jesse Ventura stated to the effect that Politicians should wear NASCAR driver suits with the logos of their contributors on them.

  • Sc Albert

    they spend multi millions but what have they done for the work force the back bone to capitalism? that’s the problem & retirees 65 & refuels to enjoy what they work for make way, pay off debts, & give way to the next generations & become mentors to better work force of advancement bring the nation back to success & away from dept row

  • A Sailor

    No one will say or think companies should be allowed to buy elections thru egregious spending. But no one can stop them either!

  • VGC

    I believe in a warp on one of our basic tenets. Why should GE spend what it does to shape American popular opinion without contributing to its revenue? No- if corporations are to have the same rights as people, they have to have the same responsibilities. No representation without taxation, I say….

  • JEStandish

    Corporations are not people. Our democracy is based on one person, one vote. Equating money to free speech favors corporate donors over individuals.

  • gt

    We are a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy

  • John Spears

    Corporations have people spending other peoples money to benefit their own greed and agenda. In no way should they be able to influence elections with under the table donations.—just importantly every donation to any candidate should be upfront for the public to see who is behind the scenes—in other words who will be “pulling the .strings” after the election is over. We addressed that “robber baron” mentality at the start of the last century. We certainly don’t won’t to go back to that graft and corruption that to much money in to few hands breeds.

  • Bill

    I agree. Corporations are not people!

  • Anna N.

    Yes, corporations are NOT people and have NO rights to equal speech in elections.

  • rainingmoon

    only human beings that have souls should be allowed to vote. Corporations don’t have souls, and don’t care about people.

  • RetiredVoter

    Corporations spend stockholder money and stockholders may not agree with the positions that money is spent to promote. Millions of us own mutual funds or stocks and don’t get any say in how money their money is spent on politics. Coporations are not voters. Only voters should be able to campaign.

  • Brian

    We should go back to having a limit on what monies can be spent plus transparency as to where the money comes from. Get rid of Citizen United and Mr Rowe.

  • ex-republican

    Its should be a limit on everyone and this includes corporations, unions and rich! The most an individual or union or corporations is $1,000.00 …..that way….we would see less election ads on tv!

  • Darrel K.Ratliff

    Only if the company is required to id every political candidate or cause that it has provided support money to directly or indirectly through purchase of any advertising media source print broadcast or net broadcast to be put in their annual stock reports so that any of the shareholders can see where their money was spent to know that they agree or disagree with the Company’s position since they are the Owners of the company and it is their speech that is being used in the form of dollars they should know what they said via the business voice to see if the Man in charge put words in the mouths of the owners that the owners are willing to stand behind.
    Corporate citizens are not individuals but the voice is said as if they were and when it may be objectionable to even a minority of the owners they should have the chance to remove the funding or an Equal to percentage to their ownership in the business.
    This is the only fair way for Corporate voice to be used. same principle for Union funding should be on a vote of the employees and funded to that percentage and not a penny more or less.

    Also any corporate interest that invests in a movement law etc should not be allowed to monitarly gain income from that effort without competitive bid for the product they also should not be allowed to write specs of a product or procedure to restrict how a bid is drawn up giving unfair advantage to that company.

  • Greg Miller

    America, best government money can buy. $40M for $200K/yr political jobs. Sectors manipulate government to drown out innovation/competition. 26,000 lobbyists is not “We the People”.
    IMMEDIATE RUNOFF VOTING – Pick who you prefer without wasting your vote.
    PUBLIC FUNDED ELECTIONS – No outside money/propaganda/influence.
    STOP THE PAYOFFS – Any individual/corporation gives anything to a politician, 10 yrs in prison and all assets auctioned off.
    FULL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE – All election results/laws/contracts/budgets/salaries/revenues and income tax returns must be posted on the web(excluding national security programs).
    PEOPLE HAVE THE FINAL SAY – All elections/laws(federal, state & local) must be approved in final form by the voters each November after public debate and by popular vote(no electoral college).
    TALK SYSTEMS – Liberal/conservative/socialist/communist/religious says nothing and won’t change a thing.
    CHANGE THE SYSTEM – Talk is just hot air. You must understand and change the system through legislation. And yes, the system is rigged against “We the People”

  • Donald Earl Cole

    A Republic meaning taxation with representation in Congress, when was the last time you called or talked to your member of Congress, in the House of Representatives or the Senate personally and offered legislation for a bill to benefit you personally or better your life conditions?

  • Donald Earl Cole

    Actually that is not totally true, the electoral college is the final say with presidential elections based on populations of a state, distribution of number of electoral votes each state has and the state decides their distribution to the candidates, each state regardless of size has two senates, the House of Representatives (peoples’ house) has a limited number of representatives based on the states last census conducted every ten years for distributions and changes in populations of a particular state. The state legislatures draw the lines and in many cases they seek political party advantages known as greeymandering.

  • Donald Earl Cole

    Good points Mr Miller….no one could have said it better.

  • lgfromillinois

    We, the American people, are not for sale to the highest corporate spender. Corporations are a person only as to litigate status, not as citizens of a free republic. The Ciizens United decision should be overturned.

  • 99Sense

    FREE SPEACH is not intended for Anonymous coward teabaggers, hiding behind Rove’s “TAX FREE Charities” and Koch brother’s ShellGame Pacs

  • 99Sense


  • 99Sense

    Newspapers do not use non disclosure anonymous speach

  • 99Sense

    Corporations and rich American feal they deserve a louder voice because they can pay for it, so let them pay more taxes on their volume…. if Corporations are people they should be subject to the same laws same taxes, and penalties. and Layoffs are Abortions.

  • Cate

    One of the most compelling comments is that corporate money does not belong to one “person,” it belongs to many stakeholders, and for corporations to buy influence in one direction or another without consensus from the stakeholders, is not free speech. It’s one thing for corporations to operate as a legal entity but this does not mean they can act as a political entity, and it is a wrong-headed argument to compare this apple with that orange. Further, if politicians are expected to divulge their tax returns, why is it OK for corporations to hide their contributions? Corporations, especially banks, have been allowed to operate without enough transparency as it is, which is why we and the Europeans got into the financial mess to begin with.

  • M M

    I think free speech would apply for corporations if they hired the candidate to speak for them and openly stated who was paying whom and why. The whole purpose of free speech is to let your opinion be known not to secretly endorse someone in hopes that you will later be paid back in favors. This I see as an obvious conflict of interest. How can an elected official be objective to the needs of so many while owing so much to so few.?

  • Minoo Nazari

    Because we as people and individuals can not compete with the big corporations. We

  • DDD

    I was disappointed with the program. A panelist in favour of Citizens United alleged that the money merely went to those candidates with views similar to the donors. (!) Such statements went unchallenged. The panel was never forced to discuss influence – how these vast sums of money influenced (or bought) the candidates views. An individual may enter, or consider entering, the public sphere to work for the public good but the money causes him or her (consciously or not) to drift from thinking of the common good to thinking about what the donor expects. Some examples of how the money corrupted some politicians positions would have brought it home.

  • EP

    I think it’s disingenuous to phrase the poll question like this. It should read: corporations OR UNIONS. If Corporation=right and Union=left then this kinda skews the question against the right. The Citizens United result means more spending for both.