@ISIDEWITHQuestionselections9yrs 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  

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 1.4k Toledo voters.

77%
Yes
23%
No
69%
Yes
17%
No
5%
Yes, and ban all political donations and publicly fund elections
6%
No, as long as all donations are public knowledge
3%
Yes, politicians should not be bought by wealthy donors
0%
No, this is a violation of free speech

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 1.4k Toledo voters.

Chart
Line chart with 8 lines.
The chart has 1 X axis displaying values. Range: to .
The chart has 2 Y axes displaying values and values.
End of interactive chart.

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 1.4k Toledo voters.

Chart
Line chart with 9 lines.
The chart has 1 X axis displaying values. Range: to .
The chart has 2 Y axes displaying values and values.
End of interactive chart.

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

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

Latest News

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

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3mos3MO

Supreme Court Clears The Way For Trump Sentencing

Donald Trump will face sentencing over his New York “hush money” conviction on Friday, after the US Supreme Court declined to grant him a last-minute reprieve.The decision will force the president-elect to face public proceedings in the criminal case that he has fought strenuously to avoid. His lawyers had appealed to the high court on Wednesday to postpone the proceeding, claiming that allowing it to go ahead days before his inauguration would create a “constitutionally intolerable risk of disruption to national security” and interfere with his efforts to get his 34 felony convictions overturned.In a 5-4 decision handed down just hours before the sentencing was set to go ahead in a state court in lower Manhattan, a majority of the justices declined to do so, saying “the burden that sentencing will impose on the president-elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial” especially as Trump was unlikely to face any prison time. They added that any issues with the evidence presented at trial — some of which Trump’s lawyers have claimed was inadmissible — “can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal”.Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberals on the bench in refusing to grant Trump’s appeal.Trump said in a post on Truth Social that he appreciated the Supreme Court’s time but vowed to continue fighting the case. “For the sake and sanctity of the Presidency, I will be appealing this case, and am confident that JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL,” he said.Lawyers representing Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Trump’s sentencing was repeatedly postponed while he mounted his third campaign for the White House and pursued various appeals against his conviction. Last week Judge Juan Merchan, who oversaw the “hush money” trial in New York earlier this year, finally set a firm date, in order to bring what he called “finality to this matter”.Trump will probably not face any punishment when he is sentenced, however, as the judge previously indicated he would not impose a fine or condemn Trump to prison time.

▲  1619 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4mos4MO

Starmer Throws Netanyahu Under the ICC Bus: UK Backs Arrest Warrant for Israeli PM

Sir Keir Starmer has backed the International Criminal Court (ICC) after it issued an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister.When asked about the issue, Sir Keir’s official spokesman said the Government respected the independence of the court.He declined to say whether Mr Netanyahu would be arrested if he arrived in the UK.The spokesman said: “We respect the independence of the ICC, which is the primary institutional institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes in relation to international law.“This Government has been clear that Israel has a right to defend itself in accordance with international law. There is no moral equivalence between Israel, a democracy and Hamas and Lebanese Hezbollah, which are terror groups.“We remain focused on pushing for an immediate ceasefire to bring an end to the devastating violence in Gaza.”Under the Conservatives, the British government had told the court it intended to challenge the plans for the arrest warrants.However, weeks after coming to power, Sir Keir’s government reversed that position and said it would not object.Downing Street also declined to say whether Mr Netanyahu would be welcome to visit Britain in the future.Sir Keir’s spokesman said: “We never comment on future international visits but my position on the Prime Minister’s support for Israel in terms of its right to defend itself in accordance with international law is very clear.”The spokesman repeatedly declined to “go into hypotheticals” about whether Mr Netanyahu would be arrested if he arrived in the UK.He added: “It’s not up to the Prime Minister to determine other world leaders’ travel schedules. He engages and will continue to engage with the prime minister of Israel in support of Israel’s right to defend itself.”Pressed on what he meant by his comments about the court, the spokesman said: “It means that we respect the independence of the ICC. We respect the fact that the ICC is the primary international institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes of international concern.”The spokesman went on to say the Government’s “focus” remained an end to the violence in the Middle East, which has been ongoing for more than a year after the Oct 7 terror attacks by Hamas.

▲  148 replies