• 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!

Rep. Deutch Presents Amendment To Ban Corporate Money From Politics

haymarket said:
I know of no such movement or effort. Do you?
Click to expand...

Thus why I used the "correct me if I'm wrong" part. I don't know, but iirc Obama was talking of how he wanted illegal aliens to be able to vote, which would undoubtedly lead to a swell in voters for the democratic side.

Simon W. Moon said:
I honestly doubt that "the right" has some monopoly on receiving lobbyists money, no matter what you and some democratic supporters would like for us to believe.
Click to expand...

I don't know for sure what the facts are. It's doubtful that any of us have the real facts. I would say I've heard that more corporations donate to the right for elections than to the left, however unions do the same thing the left.

CriticalThought said:
I agree. All union and corporate money should be banned from politics.
Click to expand...

It would seem reasonable, but then again I don't have the knowledge to weigh all of this in the balance. How do you think banning both $$$ sources would effect elections, CT?
 
Wake said:
I don't know for sure what the facts are. It's doubtful that any of us have the real facts. I would say I've heard that more corporations donate to the right for elections than to the left, however unions do the same thing the left.
Click to expand...
Unions are corporations.
 
This is wonderful. If it were to pass, it would be the first fundamental change to the system we have seen in a long time. We are in desperate need of something other than baby steps.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Unions are corporations.
Click to expand...

Did not know that.

In light of that I guess I don't have a problem with it, though I don't know what other angles can be played from this banning.

Which party would benefit the most, I wonder, seeing as a lot of liberals/socialists/progressives seem to be enthralled with this idea.
 
Wake said:
It would seem reasonable, but then again I don't have the knowledge to weigh all of this in the balance. How do you think banning both $$$ sources would effect elections, CT?
Click to expand...

It would have a monumental effect on elections. As it is now, candidates are screened by corporations and unions long before they ever get to voters because candidates who are not in the pockets of corporations and unions are not able to finance their campaigns. As such, it doesn't matter if Obama or Romney wins the next election, because it will be the corporations' interests that are served either way.
 
Last edited:
Wake said:
Which party would benefit the most, I wonder, seeing as a lot of liberals/socialists/progressives seem to be enthralled with this idea.
Click to expand...

Both parties would benefit immensely. As it is now, politicians are focused on obtaining funds in order to beat their opponents more than they are on policy and leadership.
 
Wake said:
Which party would benefit the most, I wonder, seeing as a lot of liberals/socialists/progressives seem to be enthralled with this idea.
Click to expand...
The electorate.
 
Wake said:
Did not know that.

In light of that I guess I don't have a problem with it, though I don't know what other angles can be played from this banning.

Which party would benefit the most, I wonder, seeing as a lot of liberals/socialists/progressives seem to be enthralled with this idea.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt that Democrats would benefit the most. After all, the Republicans are famous as the party of Big Money, i.e., Fatcats, Wall Street, bankers, oil companies and the military.
 
DaveFagan said:
There is no doubt that Democrats would benefit the most. After all, the Republicans are famous as the party of Big Money, i.e., Fatcats, Wall Street, bankers, oil companies and the military.
Click to expand...

Blinders is another reason it likely will not get done.
 
DaveFagan said:
There is no doubt that Democrats would benefit the most. After all, the Republicans are famous as the party of Big Money, i.e., Fatcats, Wall Street, bankers, oil companies and the military.
Click to expand...

Democrats love sticking their tongues in the assholes of business and tossing their salad just as much as the republicans do. The whole democrats are for the poor working class and republicans are for the rich is nothing more than just a myth.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
A corporation is a separate entity from the people who are a part of it. That's exactly the point of a corporation.
Click to expand...

How so?Looking at the definition of a corporation it is pretty clear that a corporation is a group of people.
Corporation | Define Corporation at Dictionary.com
oun
1.
an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members.
2.
( initial capital letter ) the group of principal officials of a borough or other municipal division in England.
3.
any group of persons united or regarded as united in one body.
 
jamesrage said:
Democrats love sticking their tongues in the assholes of business and tossing their salad just as much as the republicans do. The whole democrats are for the poor working class and republicans are for the rich is nothing more than just a myth.
Click to expand...

I certainly agree both carter to and appease business, and both let money talk all too much. And there really isn't as much of a difference as many of us would like between the two, no matter whihc side your on. But I wouldn't go so far as to call it a myth. You are much more likely to get some policy favoring the working class with democrats than republicans. They won't go near far enough, or make the really bold stands, as the money will never allow them to. But there is a small difference.
 
jamesrage said:
How so?
Click to expand...
Start here instead

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/artificial-person.html
Entity (such as a firm) other than a natural person (human being) created by law and recognized as a legal entity having distinct identity, legal personality, and duties and rights. Also called juristic person or legal person. See also body corporate.​
.

legal fiction - Google Search


legal definition of corporation - Google Search


corporation legal definition of corporation. corporation synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
One benefit is that a corporation's liability for damages or debts is limited to its assets, so the shareholders and officers are protected from personal claims, unless they commit fraud.


artificial person - Google Search


artificial person legal definition of artificial person. artificial person synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
A legal entity that is not a human being but for certain purposes is considered by virtue of statute to be a natural person.​
.
They have an existence independent of the people who run them and those who own them. That's the whole purpose of forming a corporation rather than a proprietorship.
.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Practically speaking, how do you do that and still be able to communicate with the voter?
Click to expand...
Well it's kind of like a NASCAR race, you make it about the racing team's ability by giving everyone basically the same car. By setting the limit on campaign money, each candidate has to be creative in using the money to get elected.
 
Wake said:
To me it seems like another movement to cripple the elections in favor of the left. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn'nt there also a tried movement by the left to allow illegal aliens to vote, in which they'd primarily vote for the left?
Click to expand...

No that was dead people. :lol:
 
American said:
Well it's kind of like a NASCAR race, you make it about the racing team's ability by giving everyone basically the same car. By setting the limit on campaign money, each candidate has to be creative in using the money to get elected.
Click to expand...

And do you see the American people as having the collective will to fund and support something like that because I sure do not?
 
American said:
Well it's kind of like a NASCAR race, you make it about the racing team's ability by giving everyone basically the same car. By setting the limit on campaign money, each candidate has to be creative in using the money to get elected.
Click to expand...

So do you want to limit the amount anyone can spend on a lawyer so that trials are fair too?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: Rep. Deutch Presents Amendment To Ban Corporate Money From Politics | OlogyCan this please get passed? I mean please for the sake of god! I gurantee however its probably going to get held up by dems, and republicans alike, but please if their is a god please come down and somehow pass this :mrgreen:

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?
Click to expand...

Corporate donations to campaigns are ALREADY ILLEGAL. Have been for a century.

The free speech rights of corporations have nothing to do with personhood.

The only major change this makes to current policy is to allow Congress to regulate or ban speech. I find that reprehensible.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
I'd like them to ban political party money from politics.
Click to expand...

1. That's funny. Say that out loud and see what I mean.

2. Political party money is only 1 or 2 percent of the total, so it's pointless anyway.
 
Thunder said:
Congress represents the People, not non-human entities.

So sure, forbid corporations, unions, businesses, & non-profits from contributing to political campaigns.
Click to expand...

All are already forbidden from doing so.

They can sponsor PACs, but those can only take voluntary donations from individuals.
 
haymarket said:
Okay - so we ban corporate money. We ban union money. We ban all group money but individual citizen contributions.

How do we finance elections?
Click to expand...

Well, since, the only source is not individuals, it will be individuals. Really, really rich individuals. Gee, that's so much better!
 
CriticalThought said:
It would have a monumental effect on elections. As it is now, candidates are screened by corporations and unions long before they ever get to voters because candidates who are not in the pockets of corporations and unions are not able to finance their campaigns.
Click to expand...

That's bull. Most of the money for campaigns comes from individuals. And anyone can simply get their name on the ballot for a primary election. If the voters are so desperate for someone who doesn't take special interest money, they could easily choose one. Yet they almost never do. That's their choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom