Page 15 of 16 FirstFirst ... 513141516 LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 160

Thread: Justices strike down political donor limits

  1. #141
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,719

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Heebie Jeebie View Post
    I don't agree with that. Though it does have some advantages it still think a candidate should be allowed to raise their own money. I think limits on what can be spent by a candidate on an election are fine (this could limit how much fund raising was needed) and I think that a candidate should not be allowed to keep any unspent funds in a 'slush' fund to be used at their discretion. Anything not spent on that election should be returned to the donors not be shuffled to other candidate or to the national party or held for use in the future.
    I support publicly funded elections.

    My views on public financing started changing when I found out the average Representative spends about half of every work day raising money for the next election. That's just amazing, and anyone who doesn't think it has an effect on their votes is delusional.

  2. #142
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Heebie Jeebie View Post
    So how come they can be sued if they are just 'property'? Can you sue a chair or a swing set or any other piece of property?
    It's more protection of the actual people behind the corporation. Corporations have been given certain privileges, some of which emulate rights of humans, for the sake of litigation. But since a corporation isn't human, it has no rights.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  3. #143
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,709

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Heebie Jeebie View Post
    So how come they can be sued if they are just 'property'? Can you sue a chair or a swing set or any other piece of property?
    You can sue a corporation pretty much for the express purpose of immunizing its owners against any legal ramifications of their actions.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  4. #144
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,505

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    If it pays taxes, it should be represented. If corporations aren't allowed political donations, then they shouldn't be taxed.
    They should neither pay taxes nor have a voice in politics. The owners of the corporation pay taxes on the earnings it makes. It is double taxation to tax the corporation as well.

    But, if they're to be counted as "people" and allowed to make political donations, then by all means, tax the (bleep!) out of them. In fact, their taxes should be double the amount that they have spent to influence elections.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  5. #145
    Sage
    faithful_servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Beautiful Central Oregon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,675

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    See this is the biggest problem with far right wingers like you.

    You are literally incapable of putting things in proper context.

    The fact that the argument to you is either corporations get to do whatever they want OR Heroine addicts decide the fate of the country is absolutely loony and ignores the reality and balance of this world.

    The wealthy and corporations are disproportionally buying the influence of the American government in their favour, while average folks are being shut out and BOTH PARTIES ARE GUILTY OF THIS and you continue blindly to support this march towards plutocracy.

    The key is balance.

    This doesn't mean that wealthy individuals should be shut out of the political process but the idea that unlimited donations to candidates and parties won't buy favours is ludicrous and ignores reality.

    It's dangerous to a healthy democracy.
    BUt your solution is to punish those who are doing something is entirely legal. We need to punish those who are providing the benefits, not those who are using their $$ to voice their opinions.
    Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

  6. #146
    Sage
    faithful_servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Beautiful Central Oregon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,675

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    The people who make up the corporation are people and should be allowed to invest any amount of their personal money into political contributions that they want. The corporation is property, it has no rights nor representation as it is property. Government is to be for the People, not property. As such corporations should be barred from political donation.
    ...barred from political contributions and no longer charged taxes. Part of the reason this nation exists is the idea of "no taxation without representation". With corps. you have that exact scenario. No sane person would ever consider giving corporations to vote, so we what we do is allow them a voice by way of political contributions. If you take away that voice, then you should take away the taxation as well. The idea of having a voice and paying taxes is tied together in the very fabric of what this nation was founded on.
    Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

  7. #147
    Sage
    faithful_servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Beautiful Central Oregon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,675

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Corporations are not actually human, not human should not be represented in a government made for The People. There's no "taxation without representation", since property shouldn't be represented in government. The CEOs have right to representation and they should be allowed to spend any amount of their money on political donation. The corporation not so much. There's no philosophical basis for property itself possessing rights.
    Then there should be no basis for then having the responsibility of paying taxes either. In a free society, the two ideas must both exist and must have measure of balance to them. Being a conservative, I tend to lean towards more responsibilities than rights, just as most liberals tend towards more rights than responsibilities. But the two must work together. A society that is based on all responsibility and no rights is a totalitarian nightmare and one that is based on all rights and no responsibility is a anarchist nightmare. We MUST pursue a balance of rights and responsibilities.
    Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

  8. #148
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,016

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    A corporation is a liability buffer created by the state to insulate and pool investors to promote economic growth. When you form a company you're making a pact with the state. You're getting liability protection in return for a slight loss of control. But those protections really only extend to functions related to conducting business.

    Lets do a thought experiment. Say you and your parter own a small business. There's a competitor which you don't like. So you form a third company, independent of you and your partner's first, which you use to release libellous statements against your competitor. Who's responsible for that speech? Obviously you are. The business is an entity for limited liability which only seeks to maximize profits. It doesn't have a voice, nor should it.
    Then if you can sue it, it has to have the same rights as a person, correct?
    There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.
    P. J. O'Rourke

  9. #149
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,016

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It's more protection of the actual people behind the corporation. Corporations have been given certain privileges, some of which emulate rights of humans, for the sake of litigation. But since a corporation isn't human, it has no rights.
    Apparently the courts have decided they do have rights. If they have the right to be penalized by the law they have to have the same rights as a person does to defend themselves.
    There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.
    P. J. O'Rourke

  10. #150
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,016

    Re: Justices strike down political donor limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    You can sue a corporation pretty much for the express purpose of immunizing its owners against any legal ramifications of their actions.
    The point is they are not just 'property' which is what I responded to. You cannot sue property.
    There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.
    P. J. O'Rourke

Page 15 of 16 FirstFirst ... 513141516 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •