Is the $2000 maximum contribution too high?

[pinkpops]

Somebody posted a site here where you could look at people's contributions (I didn't post it and won't be the one to repost because it pissed so many people off). Anyway, it seemed to me like most Bush donors gave the limit (2k). Most others averaged less. So I started thinking, isn't $2000 a little high for most people. I mean to a poor person anyone who can give 2K is a rich person. So doesn't the campaign finance law really favor the well-to-do?

[yardwork]

1. Of course.

Not only that, the wealthy and powerful figure out lots of ways to make sure that more than $2,000 per head goes to support *

[Eric J in MN]

3. Those who can afford it can also give $5,000 to the RNC, plus

Those who can afford it can also give $5,000 to the RNC, plus more money to Republican state parties around the country, plus more money to PACs, plus more money to other Republican candidates.

[pinkpops]

4. Yeah, I was watching the News Hour just now about 527's

I think they are called 527's. I'm afraid I don't understand the limits very well. The RNC says they are illegal. If so the R's have an advantage because the D's can't use big donors to make up for a lack of "upper middle class" $2000 donors. I wonder how many people are giving $ 2000 which was disbursed to them for the purpose?

[jo35042]

2. seems a bit high to me.....

when Bush was in Nashville at a $1000 a plate dinner, my
family and I were outside in our little "free speech
zone" (is that some kind of oxymoron?) with the folks
protesting the war in Iraq and feeding the homeless. We had a
ball. Most of the couples coming out of the dinner (that would
be $2000 per couple of plates) did not look as though their
expensive dinner with the pres was sitting too comfortably on
their stomachs. Or maybe it was not the dinner, but the fact
that they did not like seeing all of us standing there.
  I was with the VA nurses protesting the major cuts in
budgets making it difficult to give Veterans good care when
they are ill.'
Hmmm........;( 

[Fla_Democrat]

5. No

If you are allowed to put 3k per year towards your retirement, why not 2K towards your future? :shrug:

[pinkpops]

6. Because

the premise of campaign finance legislation is that political campaigns should be funded by donations from individuals, and $2000 is a fortune for many if not most (i.e. > 50%) of the people.

[Fla_Democrat]

10. I'm not sure I am following you

Are you saying that the 2,000 is beyond the ability of an individual? If it isn't, then I guess the premise you put forth is being met.

The 2k limit is the maximum, and it isn't a forced contribution. There is nothing forcing people to give the maximum, or even give at all. So, what's the problem with the limit being where it is, or even higher? :shrug:

[pinkpops]

12. I'm not that solid on my premise

because in my heart I don't think there ever has been or will be a "fair" system. The point is, if you're going to reduce the influence of the "rich" people on the outcome of elections, you have to define what "rich" is. If you work for minimum wage, there is no way you could donate $2000. True, you could donate $20, but how many minimum wage earners would it take to match the zillions of $2000 donors on the other side. If you look at Bush donors averages and, say, Dean, Kuchinich, even Clark, you will see what I mean.

[Fla_Democrat]

14. OK, but

keep in mind that $2000 breaks down to $7.69 per "work day", and $5.48 per day. (2000/365) A pack of smokes and a cup of coffee, or in some states, a pack of smokes. I'm sure many people would be willing to put aside a little personal pleasure to donate to a candidate that they feel will be working in their best interest.

I do concede the average donations might favor a "rich" person's choice of candidate, but I can't help but factor in sweat equity in my thinking. How many of the people writing a check for $20, are walking the beat trying to register voters? How many are meeting with neighbors, and placing yard signs? How many will be standing at major intersections, campaigning for the person, they could only afford to give $20? Even figuring their time at minimum wage (and who in their right mind would figure their own time at minimum?) I expect the value of the "poor" donations are no small thing.

Now, how many of the $2000 donors do you think will be doing the same thing?

[Yupster]

7. I don't think anyone

will be bribed for $ 2,000. Seems okay to me. I've spent $ 2,000 on lots of less important things.

[leftofthedial]

8. way too high

elections should be 100% publicly funded.

[jeanmarc]

9. Maybe too high, but leftofthedial is making a bit of a different argument

And he might be right.

I think that they made the 2000 buck limit based on some prediction of how much money it would ultimately represent and of course, it is a rounded figure.

I think it might be problematic, but it can be remedied, of a fully funded election by the public. What do you do to prevent zero name candidates from running as either a joke or to earn public cash?

[treepig]

11. there should be no limits

provided there is full disclosure - e.g., along the lines of the websites that mysteriously pissed people off.

[revcarol]

13. It used to be $1000 pre-McCain-Feingold.

The only way they could get McCain Feingold passed was to increase the individual contribution to $2000, because repugs knew they have a lot more $2000 people than Democrats.

It was a compromise to get "campaign-finance reform" passed. Talk about a deal with the devil!!:evilfrown: