Hang on while we load the rest of the page...
 
 

Poll Results: Campaign Finance Laws Must Change

All but one respondent to Patch poll want donors to superpacs to fall under the same rules as campaign contributors.

 

Though the contest for the 10th Congressional District seat between Rep. Elect Brad Schneider (D-Deerfield) and Rep. Robert Dold (R-Kenilworth) was very close, there was near unanimity about reader dislike for the $13.1 million spent on the campaign.

A survey of Patch readers asked whether people who make unlimited donations on independent expenditures should fall under the same disclosure requirements as donors to the Schneider and Dold campaigns as well.

Earlier: Poll: Was Too Much Spent on Schneider-Dold Race

Of the 20 people who answered the question, 19 believe the requirements should be the same. Only one person would keep the law as defined in the Citizens United Case by the United States Supreme Court in 2010 intact.

“Yes, too much was spent--especially from outside,” reader Samuel Ramey wrote.

“Yes -- this is ridiculous amounts of money,” T.J. Wheeler added.

Others were upset with not only the money spent on the Congressional campaign, but on Illinois General Assembly races as well. Each time Merrill Medansky got a call or looked at the mail, it was a reminder of spending run amok.

“I feel too much was spent not only on the race for 10th congressional district, but state senate and state representative as well,” Medansky wrote. “The mailings and rob calls were not only not informative but a nearly daily reminder of how much money could have been used so much more effectively for food pantries and other social service agencies all across the district.

Related Topics: 10th district, Brad Schneider, Citizens United, Democratic Party, Republican Party, Robert Dold, and election 2012

Steve Firestone

3:45 pm on Thursday, November 15, 2012

I would say it the other way. The same rules that apply to PACs should apply the the candidates.

Reply
Comment_arrow

LTH

8:57 pm on Thursday, November 15, 2012

Currently, Political Action Committees are limited in much the same way as Candidates' Campaigns. The issue comes with thee so called "Super PACs," which are a different type of legal organization than normal PACs. I do agree though that these Super PACs need to be regulated.

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that "Corporations are People" and believe Super PACs need to be regulated, or even made illegal.

Jac Charlier

10:30 pm on Thursday, November 15, 2012

What about this...only individuals can donate and that has reasonable caps on it for the primary and general election. No corporations or unions as they are not individuals. Like Term Limits, not ideal but necessary.

Reply

Old H.P.

9:14 am on Friday, November 16, 2012

The misuse of 501(c)(3) non-profits is the real problem in politics today. George Soros and Rupert Murdock use them when they support their Left- or Right-wing fringe groups. And taxpayers pay for both. Corporate CEOs and unions that want to invest in so-called non-partisan (yet biased) “think tanks” like Cato or Heritage, when they want to develop slanted studies that support their agendas and block others (like blocking legislation that would increase their tax liability but increase yours). I am not sure if anyone looked at the mailings or small print this election cycle, but if you did you will find out it was 100% 501(c) driven.

Reply

Steve Firestone

10:27 am on Friday, November 16, 2012

There should be no regulations on free speech. The same lack of regulations for the Super PACs should apply to the PACs and the campaigns. Every time Campaign Finance Reform is tried, the unexpected consequences kick in, and it's worse than before. As for business not being people, I'm all for it. But, you may have a hard time suing them, and in return we should stop taxing them. If you think about it, every tax on a corporation is paid by us in reduced products, services, quality, or higher prices. So really, it's just a double tax on us.

Reply

Jon Hall

9:18 am on Tuesday, November 27, 2012

I'd like to hear what that FATHEAD Louis G. Atsav us has to say now.

Reply

guee

3:25 am on Friday, November 30, 2012

called in his book a “healthy debate” http://www.coachfactoryoutletcc.us /Coach Outlet Onlineover troop levels in the country.But the president’s decision to tap

Mr. Petraeus to command the war in Afghanistan, http://www.guccibeltsoutletstores.net /Gucci Beltsand later picking him to lead the C.I.A., effectively ended lingering

concerns among Obama political advisers that the http://www.coachoutletonlinewo.com /Coach Outlet Storepopular general might challenge his commander in chief during

the election.Mr. Petraeus and his wife met http://www.coachfactorystoredo.com /Coach Factory Onlinewhen he was a cadet at West Point; she was the daughter of the

academy’s superintendent and a student at Dickinson http://www.coachfactoryoutletpo.com /Coach Factory Outlet OnlineCollegeinPennsylvania.condemnation on Wednesday.“

The Egyptian people, the Egyptian leadership, http://www.coachoutletonlinefc.org /Coach Outlet Onlinethe Egyptian government and all of Egypt is standing with all its

Reply

Leave a comment

 
 
 

In This article

See More on Patch

 

Most Popular articles

Your town. Mobilized.

Download Patch for iPhone or Patch Places for Android.

Learn more 

Own a local business?

Stay in touch with customers by claiming your free Patch listing.

Learn more 

Advertise on Patch

Build community trust in your local brand with game-changing tools for any budget.

Learn how