View Poll Results: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

Voters
176. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    66 37.50%
  • No

    110 62.50%
Page 27 of 45 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 443

Thread: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

  1. #261
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    10-29-17 @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,684

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    The UK also has problems with contributions. If we are ever going to become any kind of real if representative democracies, then we have to do something about the bribes and lobby money given. The problem is how. I believe, like the report discussed below, it has to come out of tax payers money but you still have to find a just way of providing it. This suggestion that it be on previous seats won does not really carry that for me as clearly is giving previous winners an advantage and makes no room for new parties but we are kidding ourselves if we believe there are free and fair elections at the moment.

    BBC News - Political parties 'should get more taxpayer funding'
    George Monboit "Neoliberalism is inherently incompatible with democracy, as people will always rebel against the austerity and fiscal tyranny it prescribes. Something has to give, and it must be the people. This is the true road to serfdom: disinventing democracy on behalf of the elite."

  2. #262
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,923
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by friday View Post
    No, I would go the other way. I would support an amendment prohibiting government contributions to corporations or unions. You do that and the corporation and union payments to the government will dry up real quick.
    The govt doesn't need to give money to a corp for the corp to derive a benefit. The benefit can be taxing their competitors or a thousand other things.
    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    No. Get your hands out of politics. The people are smart enough to decide how to vote without your help.
    Exactly, let the artificial persons lobby the electorate rather than the govt. Let the electorate decide.
    Quote Originally Posted by conservativeguy View Post
    Unions and corporations aren't people so they don't petition the government, the leadership of each entity does......they are human so they have the 1st Amendment right to petition the government.
    There's no difference between an entity petitioning the govt and the entity's agents petitioning the govt. Petitioning on behalf of an organization is different than petitioning on behalf of one's self.
    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    No, because all they'll do instead is funnel that money into PACs to get around it.
    PACs are corporations too.
    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Obviously a restriction on spending money on speech is a restriction on speech.
    Of course it is. The issue being the negative effects of allowing artificial persons to lobby the govt.
    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Lobbying is a fundamental right protected by the First Amendment.
    That's why the subject of this thread is a Constitutional amendment.
    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    Primarily to provide limits to individual liability.There is absolutely no need to confer "personhood" on a non-human entity.Other mechanisms could be easily devised to facilitate business and provide liability limits WITHOUT conferring personhood.
    The reason for conferring personhood is to avoid having to create an entire parallel set of laws etc for situations where the same rules should be applied. Really the system works pretty well--except for the whole lobbying the govt thingy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    Personhood for corporations is just another form of greed and control.
    It's really not. It's a practical and elegant solution to some otherwise complex problems of allowing people to work together for business and other purposes.
    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    If your conclusion is that voters are dumb, why let them vote in the first place?
    We're not dumb, we're busy. Rational Ignorance
    I may be wrong.

  3. #263
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,923
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Lobbying is a right, so spending money on it is a right.
    The right to lobby should be restricted to real persons.
    Quote Originally Posted by ElijahGalt View Post
    Absolutely not. It is against the first amendment of the constitution.
    That's why the issue under discussion is an amendment to the Constitution.
    Quote Originally Posted by ElijahGalt View Post
    It is no more just to bar corporations and unions from pledging money in an election as it is just to bar smaller organizations and individuals from freely practicing their right to speak.
    I think that these various artificial persons should lobby the electorate instead of the govt.
    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    You don't have to. Write a letter or call them on the phone if you want.
    If that action is the equivalent of what lobbyists do, then why do they have a job? It's silly to suggest that writing a letter to you Congresscritter is somehow the equivalent of flying that critter to a vacationfact finding trip, or one of the hundreds of other similar events.
    Quote Originally Posted by Krhazy View Post
    I voted yes, but I think Unions are more similar to PACs than corporations. I don't think I have as much a problem with PACs/Unions as I do corporations...
    PACs and unions ARE corporations
    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    Those of you who oppose "personhood" for corporations, are you willing to give up the ability to tax them, sue them or even criminally prosecute them? After all, if they're not legally "persons" how can they ever have the requisite mental state to prove civil or criminal liability?
    I see no reason to toss out the very, very useful legal fiction of corporate personhood. All that needs to be done is to restrict the ability of artificial persons to lobby the govt.
    I may be wrong.

  4. #264
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    PACs are corporations too.
    Not really, but whatever.

    The issue being the negative effects of allowing artificial persons to lobby the govt.
    Last time I checked there were no robots or corporate charters walking around the Capitol lobbying.

    People can lobby on behalf of a person, or a group of people, or a group of people who have created a legal entity. No difference.

    That's why the subject of this thread is a Constitutional amendment.
    And that means this is a proposal to take away some First Amendment rights. Which I find scary.

    We're not dumb, we're busy.
    Whatever. Too busy to vote? Don't blame someone else for that either.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  5. #265
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    The right to lobby should be restricted to real persons.
    Why?

    If that action is the equivalent of what lobbyists do, then why do they have a job?
    Because they do it on behalf of thousands of people. And they do it full-time. And they do it alot better - they know what to say and who to say it to and when to say it. For the purposes of this discussion, lobbying is nothing more than petitioning the government, i.e. it's not the same thing as making donations (which individuals ALSO do, but whatever).

    PACs and unions ARE corporations
    Not quite, but they are non-human entities.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  6. #266
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by alexa View Post
    The UK also has problems with contributions. If we are ever going to become any kind of real if representative democracies, then we have to do something about the bribes and lobby money given.
    How does money interfere with the ability of citizens to vote for their representatives?
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  7. #267
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,774

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    I'd support an amendment barring *ALL* private money from elections. No one should be able to contribute to any political campaign directly.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  8. #268
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    At the moment artificial persons have more rights than is good for us as a nation. My case is that artificial person should be restricted from lobbying our govt because it produces perverse results that are harmful to the country as a whole--but beneficial to the lobbying groups and the legislators promoting them.
    Yes, it all comes down to this - you think the rights of those you disagree with should be restricted simply because you don't agree with them.

    It's that kind of thinking that is why we have these rights in the first place.
    This is actually a very big thing that affects our govt from top to bottom to some degree and threatens the viability of our representative form of govt by allowing for the subversion of the intended process through the bypassing of the electorate.
    How is the electorate "bypassed?" Last time I checked, you still had to win the most votes to win an election (unless you're George Bush in 2000 of course).
    I think there should be a limit on how much individuals can contribute to a campaign for office.
    There already are such limits. Have been for 35 years.

    Countries from all over the world hold more sway in DC than the average member of the electorate. Pick w/e your favorite boogey man country is, and sure enough, they have more influence on your congressman than you do.
    Come on.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  9. #269
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,923
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Which effectively made corporations people.
    The legal fiction of artificial persons had existed for quite some time before that ruling.
    Quote Originally Posted by Boring Bob View Post
    Corporations and unions can independantly fund political messages, which act as an indirect donation to whomever is supported in those messages. In the case of Hillary, for example, an independant organization was attempting to defame a presidential candidate, which would directly benefit Hillary's opponents. The money spent on Hillary is thus effectively a donation to her opponents' campaigns. Now, I don't necessarily have a problem with Citizens United, a non-profit political organization, making a statement like this. I do have a problem with America's major profitable organizations making statements like this.
    I think artificial persons SHOULD lobby the electorate on issues. I don't think it's a good idea to allow them to lobby the electorate about candidates.
    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    There are only three sources of funding now, and all come ultimately from individuals. So ultimately, all the money comes from individuals.
    All of our bodies' energy ultimately comes from the sun, but I still don't call sunshine the same thing as food.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    2. PACs, which collect voluntary donations from individuals (or other PACs). These are often sponsored by corporations, unions, or other groups.
    3. Parties, which also collect money from voluntary donations from individuals (or PACs).
    No corporate or union money allowed.
    Both PACs and political parties are are corporations.
    I may be wrong.

  10. #270
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Would you support an amendment barring corporate and union money from elections?

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    All of our bodies' energy ultimately comes from the sun, but I still don't call sunshine the same thing as food.
    Of course not, and I didn't say that. But it does all come from the sun, not from somewhere else.

    Both PACs and political parties are are corporations.
    No, PACs are not usually incorporated. Not sure about parties but I doubt it. But yes, both are non-human legal entities - and both have rights. Would you actually say a political party has no right to lobby or speak?
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

Page 27 of 45 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... 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
  •