@ISIDEWITHQuestionselectionsStarted 9yrs agoActive 6hrs ago

Should there be a limit to the amount of money a candidate can receive from a donor?

In the U.S. a citizen may give $2,700 per election to a federal candidate, $5,000 per year to a PAC, $10,000 per year to a State or local party committee and $33,400 per year to a national party. Citizens and corporations may give unlimited amounts to a Super PAC. A Super PAC is freed from traditional campaign finance laws as long as it does not fund a candidate or campaign or coordinate directly with a campaign how to spend donations.

+
Expand
+ Settings x  Chase Oliver

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 1.1k Chase Oliver voters.

44%
Yes
56%
No
27%
Yes
24%
No
10%
Yes, politicians should not be bought by wealthy donors
17%
No, as long as all donations are public knowledge
8%
Yes, and ban all political donations and publicly fund elections
14%
No, this is a violation of free speech

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 1.1k Chase Oliver voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 1.1k Chase Oliver voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Chase Oliver voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9MYMGYN from Georgia  answered…7mos7MO

There should be no limits on individual donations not made through a PAC or public funds, but there should be a limit on PAC/corporate donations

 @5DVLBZWfrom Indiana  answered…4yrs4Y

All current regulations hurt all alternatives to the Democratic and Republican Party candidates. The limits the D/R politicians impose on themselves are routinely violated by them, in fact; but are vigorously enforced against people like me. You really should look into this yourself.

 @8XLR4JX  from North Carolina  answered…1yr1Y

Yes, and any pay-to-play candidates should be disqualified and any pay-to-play donors fined or jailed.

 @9K5MYMG from Wisconsin  answered…10mos10MO

Yes, but make it so all donations are completely anonymous to everyone even the person receiving the donation so the money cannot influence someone in the government's decision making.

 @9L3PV69 from California  answered…9mos9MO

people should not be limited. corporations should. people are citizens with constitutional (first amendment) rights. corporations are not.

 @9D3RPBQfrom Guam  answered…1yr1Y

Donors should be only perceived by grassroots sources and sources that are entirely democratic and people oriented

 @8PP96SHfrom Maine  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, politicians should not be bought by wealthy donors Yes, and ban all political donations and publicly fund elections

 @8GBN55K from California  answered…4yrs4Y

Elimination of corporate donations and a limitation to how much individuals may donate. Ban PAC'S.

Latest News

Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Campaign Finance” news articles, updated frequently.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3wks3W

Matt Gaetz’s Campaign Finances Don’t Add Up

Former Congressman Matt Gaetz’s campaign committee has reported spending millions of dollars on Stripe Inc.’s payment-processing services in recent years, though it now says that those funds ultimately went somewhere else — and campaign-finance watchers say that’s a problem.During the 2024 election cycle, Gaetz’s principal campaign committee, Friends of Matt Gaetz, said in Federal Election Commission filings that it had paid a total of $1.2 million in “e-merchant fees” to Stripe, a San Francisco-based financial-services company. The sum is equivalent to about 19% of all contributions the campaign took in during the period, the filings show.Such outlays far exceed election-season norms. A Bloomberg News analysis of FEC filings by candidates for federal office this year found that campaign committees typically reported spending between 1% and 4% of their contributions on payment processing. Most campaigns report payment-processing expenses separately from other vendor costs.Gaetz has long disclosed comparatively high spending on financial-processing fees, FEC filings show. Over the past three election cycles, his campaigns have reported paying Stripe $2.5 million — or 13% of their fundraising haul over that time. That is a greater share of donations than any other candidate or committee has reported paying Stripe since 2020. Gaetz was first elected to Congress in 2016.When a credit card is used for a transaction, including for political donations, it can generate a small processing fee to cover costs. For well-funded campaigns, those costs can add up. During the 2020 campaign, for instance, Trump’s Make America Great Again Committee reported paying Stripe over $5.1 million in fees, according to FEC filings. However, those fees accounted for less than 1% of the nearly $900 million raised by Trump’s campaign over the four-year period.Bloomberg’s initial analysis of the FEC filings found that the Gaetz campaign committee’s reported payments to Stripe were many times what it was likely to have owed the company for its services. According to its website, Stripe typically charges 2.9% of the donation plus 30 cents per transaction. Stripe handles more than $1 trillion in transactions a year.

▲  46 replies

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3wks3W

Donald Trump nominates Pam Bondi as the next Attorney General

Former President and 2024 Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has announced his intention to nominate former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi as the next Attorney General of the United States, should he reclaim the presidency in the upcoming election.Bondi, a prominent figure in Republican politics, served as Florida's Attorney General from 2011 to 2019. She gained national attention for her legal battles on issues such as health care reform, consumer protection, and opioid abuse litigation. Known for her steadfast support of Trump during his presidency, Bondi also served as a key adviser during his first impeachment trial, where she defended his administration against accusations of abuse of power.In a statement released by his campaign, Trump praised Bondi’s “unwavering commitment to justice” and her “track record of standing up for everyday Americans against the abuses of Washington’s elites.”“Pam Bondi has been a fearless advocate for the people, and she embodies the principles of fairness, accountability, and the rule of law that are sorely needed to restore trust in our justice system,” Trump said. “She is the right person to lead the Department of Justice into a new era of integrity and excellence.”While Bondi’s nomination has been met with applause from conservative circles, it has also reignited criticism from Democrats and ethics watchdogs. Her acceptance of a $25,000 donation from the Trump Foundation in 2013, which coincided with her decision not to pursue an investigation into Trump University, has drawn scrutiny in the past and resurfaced following the announcement.Democratic leaders have already voiced opposition, questioning Bondi’s ability to lead the Department of Justice independently. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) called the nomination “a political power play” and urged a focus on “restoring integrity, not entrenching partisanship.”

▲  2317 replies

Active 3 days ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3wks3W

Kamala Harris is considering running for president again in 2028

Kamala Harris has been lying low since her defeat in the presidential race, unwinding with family and senior aides in Hawaii before heading back to the nation’s capital.But privately, the vice president has been instructing advisers and allies to keep her options open — whether for a possible 2028 presidential run, or even to run for governor in her home state of California in two years. As Harris has repeated in phone calls, “I am staying in the fight.”She is expected to explore those and other possible paths forward with family members over the winter holiday season, according to five people in the Harris inner circle, who were granted anonymity to discuss internal dynamics. Her deliberations follow an extraordinary four months in which Harris went from President Joe Biden’s running mate to the top of the ticket, reenergizing Democrats before ultimately crashing on election night.“She doesn’t have to decide if she wants to run for something again in the next six months,” said one former Harris campaign aide. “The natural thing to do would be to set up some type of entity that would give her the opportunity to travel and give speeches and preserve her political relationships.”“She doesn’t have to decide if she wants to run for something again in the next six months,” said one former Harris campaign aide. “The natural thing to do would be to set up some type of entity that would give her the opportunity to travel and give speeches and preserve her political relationships.”Harris concedes: 'We must accept the results of this election'SharePlay VideoMost immediately, Harris and her advisers are working to define how and when she will speak out against Donald Trump and reassert her own role in the Democratic Party. Closing out her term as vice president, she’s set to preside over certifying the November election she lost to Trump, and then appear at the once-and-future president’s inauguration on Jan. 20.“There will be a desire to hear her voice, and there won’t be a vacuum for long,” a person close to Harris said.At the same time, Harris and her husband, Doug Emhoff, will have a long checklist to plow through before they leave the Naval Observatory for good.They have to decide whether they’ll take up permanent residence at their home in Los Angeles, or establish a base elsewhere. No matter where Harris and her family live, some around her have expressed concerns about safety, as her Secret Service protection expires six months after stepping away.

▲  1023 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3 days3D

Elizabeth Warren Walks Back Murder Comments

Congressional Democrats broadly denounced the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson Friday morning, after Republicans started accusing Sen. Elizabeth Warren of excusing violence.“No one's condoning this,” said Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.). “Violence never is the right answer for anything. And it was a horrible murder, a tragic loss for his family.” Warren this week condemned the shooting, but added that people “can be pushed only so far.”"We'll say it over and over," Warren said on MSNBC’S “The ReidOut.” " Violence is never the answer. This guy [Luigi Mangione] gets a trial who's allegedly killed the CEO of UnitedHealth, but you can only push people so far, and then they start to take matters into their own hands."In a statement to POLITICO, Warren said, “Violence is never the answer. Period. I should have been much clearer that there is never a justification for murder.” Top Republicans denounced Warren's comments and the walked-back rhetoric, with House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) calling it “inappropriate and dangerous.”Some House Democrats asked about the incident on Thursday pivoted the conversation to discuss policy options on health care or gun safety.“I don't really know that this is really a space that Congress normally weighs in on,” said Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas). “But at the end of the day, I think it’s an opportunity, because now people are talking about health care and to talk about the fact that this industry has honestly not been as helpful as it could be.”“Violence is never the answer,” said Rep. Troy Carter (D-La.). “We know that there are people suffering, there’s great challenges in healthcare. There's great challenges, and people have, in fact, been wronged, but a process of governance is the way to address that, not violence.”And Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) who denounced the murder, said the killer should be prosecuted and that “I do know that allegedly a ghost gun was used, and we should also ban ghost guns. There's no reason for them beyond the streets.”

▲  1614 replies