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 37 of 45 FirstFirst ... 273536373839 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 443

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

  1. #361
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrilla View Post
    private funding of the main parties does not exclude us from the election process....we advocate for trusting people to fund who they want, with however much they want to give... to do otherwise would be against the stated principles of the party.

    we oppose limits on free speech and we oppose our incumbency protection acts .. (better known as campaign finance reform act, McCain Fiengold)
    we find that the citizens united decision, while certainly a step in the right direction, didn't go far enough in releasing the grip the major parties/incumbents have on our system.
    The Libertarian platform on campaign finance reform may help explain this:

    Libertarian share of the votes in the 2008 presidential election - 0.4%
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  2. #362
    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 Thrilla View Post
    ya mean like limiting candidate expenditures?... i'm cool with that.
    Why?

    Who are you to say a candidate has said enough?
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  3. #363
    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 lpast View Post
    Thats exactly what im saying....you cant stop people from giving money to them...we have to make it so everyone can spend the same amount.

    Every candidate gets the same amount of airtime...they get the same amount to spend on ads etc...all taxpayer funded...may the best person win...NOT THE RICHEST PERSON...it ends the influence of the George Soros and Koch brothers of the world and gives it to all the voters...
    Freedom of speech means you can't decide that someone has too much speech.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  4. #364
    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 Thrilla View Post
    how do you know we can't limit the politicians themselves?.. it's never been attempted by any congress... ever.
    You mean limits on spending? Yes, that was tried, and overturned in the courts as a violation of free speech.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  5. #365
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, Vegas, Colombia
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 06:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,295

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    The Libertarian platform on campaign finance reform may help explain this:

    Libertarian share of the votes in the 2008 presidential election - 0.4%
    ooooh an appeal to popularity... that always works out well.
    there was a time when most everybody believed the world was flat... do you feel the few that believed it was spherical were wrong?


    had you ever taken the time to do your homework, you'd know that there is no Libertarian party platform concerning campaign finance reform....
    why haven't you taken the time to inform yourself?

  6. #366
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, Vegas, Colombia
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 06:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,295

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

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Why?

    Who are you to say a candidate has said enough?
    I'm Thrilla... glad to meetcha!

    why, you ask..... well,because I don't have a problem with limiting the rights of government agents or government agents to-be.

    admittedly,it's not a very consistent position of mine,taking my ideology into consideration, but it's one I hold nonetheless.

  7. #367
    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 Thrilla View Post
    I'm Thrilla... glad to meetcha!

    why, you ask..... well,because I don't have a problem with limiting the rights of government agents or government agents to-be.
    Nice circular argument.

    admittedly,it's not a very consistent position of mine,taking my ideology into consideration, but it's one I hold nonetheless.
    Okay, an inconsistent and circular argument.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  8. #368
    Mr. Professional
    Mensch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,666
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    An organization or a social entity in the way that you are talking about usually has one common goal directed at something specific, usually some sort of ideology or cause. Like La Raza, or anti-abortion/pro-choice or some such. In such cases everyone that is a part of those organizations agree on one basic principle. Why? Because each member of those types of organizations joined that organization for that specific purpose. As such it is logical that one or a few people speak for the whole.
    Intentions are irrelevant to the 1st Amendment rights. Locate the provision in the Bill of Rights that exempts corporations or other organizations from freely expressing themselves using their own dollars because of specific intentions, or presumed misrepresentation. A employee is a member of a corporation. The corporation speaking on behalf of its own is not a guarantee of misrepresentation. The employees want the company to grow (ideally) so they can be rewarded (potentially). The corporation is not in the business of hurting itself, and its organizational interests and employee interests are one and the same. If members do not like the actions or speech of its company, they are free to leave. But again, the intentions and your allegations of misrepresentation are not relevant to the principle of free speech.

    A corporation however has no such common goals. The ones that control the corporation does not ask Joe Blow that works in the mail department what ideas he may have or what politician he supports and no corporation requires any of thier employees to follow any specific credo. The only reason that people are a part of any corporation is to make money, not to be supporters or non-supporters to an ideaology.
    Inevitably, the goal of the corporation in its endeavors to persuade elections is usually based on a goal of growth and prosperity (i.e. making money). It doesn't matter if the executives do or don't personally ask the individual employees of their opinions. And you have no proof that every time a company lobbies or spends money on an election, the workers are never involved or consulted.Often, unions are organizations of workers who spend their own money on elections or politicians, to persuade legislation and regulation in their favor. Do you have proof that the corporate executives are stealing money from workers in order to pay for these endeavors? If it is found to be true, it is absolutely wrong in those cases. But that's a totally different issue- theft. If it's not theft, then the executives have every right to spend the money left over (after paying out wages and overhead) to these kinds of pursuits. A group of executives, board members, and thousands of shareholders are groups of people. Logically, the corporation wouldn't lobby for anything too drastic, since major ethical abominations would influence shareholders to sell their stocks. CEOs and board members can be removed for making bad choices. And thousands of people are involved in these issues. Why restrict the entire organization's right to free speech?

    A family is not a person, but that doesn't justify duct tape over the mouths of your wife and children.

    As such comparing the two is like comparing a human to a rock.
    My argument has to do with nothing more than equating the free speech rights of individuals with those of organizations. The exemptions you're referring to do not exist anywhere in the Bill of Rights.

    Finally, all of this would be a non-issue if the federal government were to follow a minimalist structure. If you open government up to personal enterprise, you'll inevitably sell one person short in favor of another. You cannot simply stop at subsidizing green energy or bailing out auto manufacturers. Once government is open for business, the subsidies and preferential treatments are limitless. How can corporations spend billions on lobbying and electioneering if there are no handouts to give?
    Last edited by Mensch; 11-26-11 at 11:27 PM.

  9. #369
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

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

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Freedom of speech means you can't decide that someone has too much speech.
    Damn right, the more money you've got, the more speech you get.

    Do people think speech is supposed to be free or something???
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  10. #370
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrilla View Post
    ooooh an appeal to popularity... that always works out well.
    there was a time when most everybody believed the world was flat... do you feel the few that believed it was spherical were wrong?
    There are still a few who think the world is flat.... do you feel we should go along with the few that still believe it is flat?

    had you ever taken the time to do your homework, you'd know that there is no Libertarian party platform concerning campaign finance reform....
    why haven't you taken the time to inform yourself?
    I was just taking you at your word (see below). Was that a mistake???

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrilla View Post
    private funding of the main parties does not exclude us from the election process....we advocate for trusting people to fund who they want, with however much they want to give... to do otherwise would be against the stated principles of the party.

    we oppose limits on free speech and we oppose our incumbency protection acts .. (better known as campaign finance reform act, McCain Fiengold)
    we find that the citizens united decision, while certainly a step in the right direction, didn't go far enough in releasing the grip the major parties/incumbents have on our system.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

Page 37 of 45 FirstFirst ... 273536373839 ... 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
  •