Christie: end political contribution limits

[NewYorkExpress]

Technically speaking, he's here.

Since an amendment to end money in politics is not going too see the light of day anytime soon, I would suggest removing individual donation limits, and the limit of how many times a single person is able to donate to a specific candidate in a given cycle. So if, Bill Gates wanted to donate 500k a month to Chris Christie 2016, from now until election day, he could, and if Joe Blow in Newark wanted to donate $50 a month to Hillary 2016 he could do so as well.

[Potus]

Sounds reasonable to me.

[IceSpear]

This still sounds horrible, but it might actually be an improvement over our current ridiculous system.

[Averroës Nix]

There is, of course, the fact that the nebulous ideal of "free speech" is overrated,

In your case, I'm inclined to agree.

[H. Ross Peron]

Sounds horrible to me.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Money doesn't equal speech in any logical world since freedom of speech is meant to be equal. Money isn't. It's pretty simple, and ludicrous that anyone would think otherwise.

money doesn't talk, it swears  -Bob Dylan

You forgot the next line....

"obscenity, who really cares? Propaganda all is phony."

Money doesn't buy votes, and if the electorate is so swayed by SuperPAC ads, than maybe they deserve the government they get. Any person who makes any attempt to inform themselves on the issues will see through the BS.

[Ljube]

Money doesn't equal speech in any logical world since freedom of speech is meant to be equal. Money isn't. It's pretty simple, and ludicrous that anyone would think otherwise.

money doesn't talk, it swears  -Bob Dylan

You forgot the next line....

"obscenity, who really cares? Propaganda all is phony."

Money doesn't buy votes, and if the electorate is so swayed by SuperPAC ads, than maybe they deserve the government they get. Any person who makes any attempt to inform themselves on the issues will see through the BS.

Exactly!

Time and time again, the exit polls show that informed voters vote against the Democrats and uninformed voters vote for the Democrats.

Maybe that's why the Democrats prefer to have as many people uninformed as possible.

[Person Man]

With unlimited campaign contributions, we can propagandize society more than any Authoritarian regime has.

Can political parties pay to have highway overpasses with a 10 x 15 foot portrait of Dear Leader over them?

[RINO Tom]

Sounds reasonable to me.

[krazen1211]

Eugene McCarthy would be proud.

[publicunofficial]

What a noble and brave stand in favor of corporate interests.

[Lupo]

I agree with Christie on this.  I would like to see no limits on individual giving, with a ban on organizational giving.  Though, I admit, would likely skew campaign finance possibilities in favor of the GOP.

[Simfan34]

I'd say it's better having money in the hands of the candidates than in the hands of outside groups. I'd obviously like limits on both (and a complete ban on spending by public sector unions), but if we must have the latter it only makes sense for us to have the former.

[pbrower2a]

Sounds reasonable to me.

Only if you want Scott Walker or Ted Cruz to act as basically a regent for the Koch family.

[Pyro]

What a noble and brave stand in favor of corporate interests.