Skip to comments.Trump open to campaign finance reform
Posted on 01/18/2016 4:29:32 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Pointing to the effects of "horrible" super-PACs, Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump on Sunday said America needs to come up with a solution to keep big money out of politics.
"Well, I think you need it, because I think PACs are a horrible thing," Trump said on CNN's "State of the Union" when asked if he would pursue campaign finance reform.
The billionaire businessman, who said he is self-financing his campaign, said the wall separating super-PACs and candidates running for public office is illusory.
"First of all, everyone's dealing with their PAC. You know, it's supposed to be like this secret thing. They're all dealing with it," he said.
Trump pointed to a pair of simultaneous rallies for Republican primary candidate Jeb Bush, one hosted by his campaign and the other by a pro-Bush super-PAC.
"Bush had an event where he had an event for his whatever and an event for his PAC, right? For his campaign. The ballrooms were right next to each other and the events were simultaneous," he said. "You tell me they're not dealing with each other?"
He said candidates become "psychologically" beholden to their big-money donors, which may influence them to disregard the public interest.
"Yes, yes, oh yeah. I mean, look, psychologically yes. That's the way it is," he said when asked if politicians are swayed by their benefactors.
"Somebody gives them money, not anything wrong, just psychologically when they go to that person, they're going to do it," he added. "They owe them. And by the way, they may therefore vote negatively toward the country."
"That's not going to happen with me."
"Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a U.S. constitutional law case dealing with the regulation of campaign spending by organizations. The United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations.
In the case the conservative lobbying group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act or "BCRA"). Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that Â§203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures and "electioneering communications". The majority decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003). The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA Â§201 and Â§311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office."....
"WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will roll out a full plan this week detailing how she would work to stem the influence of big money in politics.
The plan goes far beyond Clinton's already stated support for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Courtâs 2010 Citizens United decision. That ruling opened the door to unlimited spending by corporations, unions and -- following a subsequent lower court ruling -- wealthy individuals spending on elections.
Clinton's embrace of a broad reform platform comes as she faces a challenge from her closest competitor, the socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), whose campaign is largely predicated on addressing income inequality and the role that money in politics plays to perpetuate it. At the same time, campaign finance reform groups have been publicly pressuring candidates to lay out reform plans beyond support for a difficult-to-attain constitutional amendment."....
I guess it's okay if it's "your money."
Hillary and Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump, together again on the issues.
Bernie Sanders values.
The media is filling the airways with Trump (like they did with McCain).
The media supports Hillary.
Indeed they are, and they have truckloads of ammo ready for when they need it.
The media hates Trump.
The man wants the RNC choice. They will lie cheat and steal to get that done. It it the only way the Beast can win
Constitution you say? What 1st amendment? Phhhhhh!
Yes. The Donald is a “true conservative.” Big Government will be fabulous when it’s wielded by the Donald. It will be great. GREAT I tell ya! Making America Great Again! YARRRRGGGGGHHH!
By the way, did you know that he is leading in the polls?
Does he have the slightest notion of what he is saying, or is he just (again) chasing a cheap applause line?
New York Republican. Your head is in the sand if you don’t know what that means.
Your TDS is getting boring.
Trump is self funding. His comments are reasonable in terms of monies effect on a candidate.
K street is why DC never changes only gets worse.
That someone is open to change does not mean they are advocating for a particular position
Big powerful government is great, as long as Trump is running it.
What gets me is the hard left turn FReepers have taken for Trump.
After all, FReepers cheered the citizens united ruling and cheered even louder when Justice Alito called Obama a liar over it during the state of the union speech a few years ago.
Today those very same people sound like Harry Reid railing on about the Koch brothers.
Talk about moral cowardice.
CU was not about K Street.......so you’re really out of your league here.
Besides, your appeal that we should only have super wealthy people as President is charming in kind of a third world statist sort of way. Bet you didn’t even realize you stepped into THAT particular steaming pile.
Trump openly supported the bank and auto bailouts for his own selfish reasons.
Trump-Obama on the First Amendment.....NY values we can trust.
Yep, and about 90% of them are so drunk with fan girl crushes they have no idea they're way out on the left edge. Suddenly on FR it's great to smooch up to Mitch McConnell....it's great to support ethanol....it's great to support Kelo.....it's great to use Stephanopolous' show as propoganda.....it's great to "reach across the aisle" - and so on.
The new improved FR I guess......
Trump wanted us to bail out the banks because he walked with 900 million of their money.....
No, they give him as much time and print as they can.
Donald Trump Ramps up Attacks on Ted Cruz, Says 'He's a Nasty Guy' ""I don't think Ted Cruz has a great chance, to be honest with you," Trump told ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos in an interview on "This Week" Sunday. "Look, the truth is, he's a nasty guy. He was so nice to me. I mean, I knew it. I was watching. I kept saying, 'Come on Ted. Let's go, okay.' But he's a nasty guy. Nobody likes him. Nobody in Congress likes him. Nobody likes him anywhere once they get to know him. He's a very - he's got an edge that's not good. You can't make deals with people like that and it's not a good thing. It's not a good thing for the country. Very nasty guy." ....
CNN Sunday: Trump has a 'great relationship' with God [and Trump on Cruz]
“I think aftah I am elected, we should make sure no one can do what I did again. No more buy candidates, which by the way is fine when I do it, because I only want what is best. I’m great. I’ll make America great. Greatest evah. And smart. You know I’m smart, right? Smartest evah. And very very ethical. I’m the most ethical evah. I never have to apologize or ask God for forgiveness, because I am great. And rich. Very very rich. I’m Trump.”
Why do the “Super PACs” even need the defense of the federal government tax laws to exist? If you say that the 1st supports these, then I say let the 1st remain supreme and not let them be “unbiased” with the implication that any candidate has no direct control over them. Why not just donate directly to their chosen candidate so we all know who exactly is pulling the economic strings of one candidate or the other?
That my friend is true transparency. Just put your cards on the table face up and let the chips fall where they may. IMO, the Super PACs do more to shield the cronyism of quid-pro-quot politics than it was before the Citizen’s United decision, which I originally agreed with. What I did not consider was how much the muddy pond would be even more of a mud bog pit.
Awareness, that’s for losers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.