Given the supreme court's decision, is it that much of a stretch

[whosinpower]

That the next logical step will be simply to buy votes.

I mean, in a free market, where everything has a price tag and is for sale, why can't corporations simply use their money to pay you to vote a certain way.

They do it now with congressmen and senators - right? How much of a stretch would it be for them to pay you to vote for a certain person?

Just think - this would create a whole new marketplace where values and prices would be determined on popularity - the less popular, the more it would cost them to buy your vote. Just like the bookies determine a bet, a whole new market would be created, determining the cost of a vote, and every voter can participate! And if you did not vote, you would not get paid.

This is a job creation program - where legal contracts would abound and corporations would have to compete with each other to ensure you would vote a certain way. And the wealth would be spread around to every single eligable voter. Is this not capitalism at its finest? I mean, votes are valuable right? Why should they be free? They aren't in Congress or the Senate. Put it out in the open - corruption is something to be embraced as the ultimate free market idealism.

Yes - this is tongue in cheek sarcasm.

[yurbud]

1. one dollar one vote is already the rule in corporate governance.

[doc03]

2. Why not? Just hand out twenties to people coming to the polls

like the coal companies did and probably still do in West Virginia.

[T Wolf]

3. Silly. Only elected officials are allowed to sell their votes. We peons are held to a higher

standard.

I would love to see people start to advertise this "product" for sale around election time.

But I bet the authorities would crack down like the suburban-Phila. pigs did to the woman who offered "favors" for World Series tickets. Can't taint the sacred electoral process now, can we?

[Birthmark]

4. Seems to me...

...a law limiting requiring that donations come only from those residing in the district/state being contested would help. Why on Earth should I, in North Carolina, be allowed to donate to a candidate in North Dakota, for example? I have no legitimate interest or right to do so, imo. That hypothetical election should be decided by North Dakotans, not North Carolinian money.

[ret5hd]

8. So every state with a Shell station or a Wal-Mart store or a store-front...

for any corporation whatsoever could be inundated with corporate money, but I (as an individual) can only contribute in my state?

[Birthmark]

9. A Shell station or a Wal-mart store...

...is not a corporation, unless it is a locally owned franchise. (I don't know if Shell has local owners, I know that Wal-Marts are all corporately owned). The parent corporation resides somewhere and it is in that district/state that that corporation should be allowed, perhaps encouraged to donate.

Locally owned franchises are, of course, owned by residents. As such, they should be allowed, perhaps encouraged, to donate to the causes that they believe in.

[iceman66]

5. The Supreme Court would probably be OK with that.

[ThomWV]

6. That's not the next step, that is the step that was just taken.

[whosinpower]

10. Their money buys ads to influence you but

Why not just pay you directly?

[Golden Raisin]

7. Another technique is what Mike Bloomberg

does in New York City. It's called Outspend and Flood. If your opponent spends $10 million on the campaign, you spend $110 million and flood TV with unending campaign commercials while simultaneously bombarding voter's mailboxes (snail-mail) with almost daily, luxuriously printed, color campaign flyers. It's worked 3 times already.