• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justices strike down political donor limits

solletica said:
No they shouldn't. In a free market, anyone should be allowed to give any amount of $$ to any candidate without having to disclose it.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you'd support that. I especially don't see the libertarian principle at work for guaranteed anonymous "speech."

As to the 1st Amendment, it's never been an absolute right. The question is whether limits on buying politicians serve a "compelling" national interest. The question answers itself in my view - of course there should be limits on the ability of money to corrupt the political process.
 
erod said:
i didn't say a bigger voice. You did.

You just want them to have no voice because that's what you do. You look for every means possible to limit the authority of those that contribute the most and succeed. It's one massive robin hood scheme driven by a party-drunk inferiority complex.
Click to expand...

*cough*

erod said:
corporate are built by people, employ people, and serve people. They also pay massive taxes to government. Those taxes are made up of money earned by those people, and as a whole, it deserves a voice in politics.

Much more, in fact, than the 5th grade dropout who's hooked on heroin that is picked up in a bus and pushes a button in exchange for another hit.
Click to expand...

Do you just not think about what you write?
 
Mithros said:
Terrible...

The reason we HAD limits was so that candidates would not be beholden to individuals.

EG. Sheldon Adelson is a casino mogul. He is strongly against online gambling because it cuts into his profit margins. He's only going to fund candidates who oppose online gambling. Now watch, GOP candidates will move to oppose online gambling.

Similar things are going to happen with the Democrats.

It's funny, the so called "originalists" are among the most activist judges in American history.
Click to expand...

There is a solution to this.Amend the Constitution to limit political contributions. Limit political contributions to individuals, Limit how much a individual can donate to a candidate, limit that individual to donating to candidates only in that voter's district and limit media exposure that a media outlet may give to a candidate.
 
Mithros said:
*cough*



Do you just not think about what you write?
Click to expand...

Yes, but do you? I said it shouldn't have a bigger voice, but I didn't say it shouldn't have a voice. Can you not follow?
 
Erod said:
Yes, but do you? I said it shouldn't have a bigger voice, but I didn't say it shouldn't have a voice. Can you not follow?
Click to expand...

In which post did you say that Corporations shouldn't have a bigger voice? I've looked through your back posts; there's nothing even remotely resembling that statement.

Look. You made an extremely unfortunate statement; that corporations deserve the right to political speech more than a 5th grade dropout. We've all gone too far when making a point, it's understandable. However, instead of acknowledging your mistake you resort to personal insults and outright fabrications. So to answer your question, yes: I think I'm following what you're trying to do and no, it's not working.
 
Mithros said:
In which post did you say that Corporations shouldn't have a bigger voice? I've looked through your back posts; there's nothing even remotely resembling that statement.

Look. You made an extremely unfortunate statement; that corporations deserve the right to political speech more than a 5th grade dropout. We've all gone too far when making a point, it's understandable. However, instead of acknowledging your mistake you resort to personal insults and outright fabrications. So to answer your question, yes: I think I'm following what you're trying to do and no, it's not working.
Click to expand...

How about the one you quoted in #127?
 
solletica said:
No they shouldn't. In a free market, anyone should be allowed to give any amount of $$ to any candidate without having to disclose it.

The current problem w/political donations is that those who have the connections to launder funds or transfer them directly via Swiss bank accounts have an unfair advantage over other donors.

And that needs to end.
Click to expand...

Democracy is not a market.
 
NIMBY said:
Don't you think a partisan hack is one who is denying that your team has had 50 repeals?
Click to expand...

You mean stating a fact makes you a hack? There have not been 50 votes to repeal Obamacare.
 
Dittohead not! said:
No, I don't want any ads at all. Ads don't inform the voters anyway, quite the contrary.
Click to expand...

Ad's do inform of positions. It is stupid to not allow candidate to use what is available in order to get them out.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Any financing should be public.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ikari said:
The corporation is property, it has no rights nor representation as it is property.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Erod said:
How about the one you quoted in #127?
Click to expand...

You mean this one?
Erod said:
I didn't say a bigger voice. You did.
Click to expand...

The post in which you denied saying that corporations are more deserving of political speech than a 5th grade dropout? (which would be here)
Erod said:
Corporate are built by people, employ people, and serve people. They also pay massive taxes to government. Those taxes are made up of money earned by those people, and as a whole, it deserves a voice in politics.

Much more, in fact, than the 5th grade dropout who's hooked on heroin that is picked up in a bus and pushes a button in exchange for another hit.
Click to expand...

What bothers me the most is that you spend so much time calling everyone else a liar, and yet seem to do it compulsively.
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mithros said:
You mean this one?


The post in which you denied saying that corporations are more deserving of political speech than a 5th grade dropout? (which would be here)


What bothers me the most is that you spend so much time calling everyone else a liar, and yet seem to do it compulsively.
Click to expand...

Can you not see the point within? I'm emphasizing that a significant tax paying corporation that employs hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people should have a voice (right to donate politically) in a system, and that it's qualifications of doing so on paper are more deserving on point than simply being a person born in the U.S.

I didn't say a corporation should be able to vote, or that the know-nothing citizen shouldn't. I'm saying it should have a voice by these means.

Lots of people are more deserving than others in all matters of things. Doesn't mean fundamental rights change, however.

It's hard to debate with box checkers.
 
Erod said:
Can you not see the point within? I'm emphasizing that a significant tax paying corporation that employs hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people should have a voice (right to donate politically) in a system, and that it's qualifications of doing so on paper are more deserving on point than simply being a person born in the U.S.

I didn't say a corporation should be able to vote, or that the know-nothing citizen shouldn't. I'm saying it should have a voice by these means.

Lots of people are more deserving than others in all matters of things. Doesn't mean fundamental rights change, however.

It's hard to debate with box checkers.
Click to expand...
Much better, bravo.
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
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?
Click to expand...

You can sue a corporation pretty much for the express purpose of immunizing its owners against any legal ramifications of their actions.
 
Erod said:
If it pays taxes, it should be represented. If corporations aren't allowed political donations, then they shouldn't be taxed.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jetboogieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

...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.
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mithros said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then if you can sue it, it has to have the same rights as a person, correct?
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Deuce said:
You can sue a corporation pretty much for the express purpose of immunizing its owners against any legal ramifications of their actions.
Click to expand...

The point is they are not just 'property' which is what I responded to. You cannot sue property.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom