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 40 of 45 FirstFirst ... 303839404142 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 400 of 443

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

  1. #391
    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 Catawba View Post
    Yes, it should be interesting to hear you explain how a smaller percentage of the wealth is > a larger percentage of the wealth.
    That was not what I was claiming.

    You do understand what wealth distribution means, right?
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  2. #392
    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
    That was not what I was claiming.

    You do understand what wealth distribution means, right?
    Yes, I do:

    "The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America."

    Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
    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

  3. #393
    User Platypus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    05-08-12 @ 07:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    117
    No for-profit institution should have a larger influence on elections than the average citizen.

  4. #394
    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 Platypus View Post
    No for-profit institution should have a larger influence on elections than the average citizen.
    Then simply ignore them.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  5. #395
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,941
    Blog Entries
    5

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

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    I don't think the dictionary definition is inconsistent with what I said. You can use that one if you like.
    That definition includes things such as campaign contributions and other activities which are intended to influence the entity being lobbied.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    All I'm saying is that alot of people mistakenly say "lobbying" when they really mean campaign finance. In other words, if they got their way and, say, banned all campaign donations, lobbying would still exist just as before.
    Except in as much that lobbying involves making contributions to campaigns and parties, and various other et ceteras that fall under the umbrella of attempting to directly influence the govt. So, it actually would make a difference in how lobbying was conducted.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    On the other hand, if you were to ban lobbying (if that were possible under the Constitution, that is) you'd be shutting up alot of people and groups that don't make donations at all.
    Instead of "shutting up alot of people and groups" it would be preventing only certain kinds of "speech" in certain circumstances on the part of artificial person when interacting with the government. The intent being to force the various groups to instead lobby the electorate.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    So you agree that it's a limit on speech?
    Only if speech is in quotation marks so that it indicates the many things which are used to influence members of the govt which are not actually words.
    But, why wouldn't it be acknowledged as such?
    We tried the current system. It turns out that it leads to some harmful side effects that are a part of the system [not a part of any entity's actual message, but rather from how the behavior the system encourages]. A change needs to be made.
    I may be wrong.

  6. #396
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,941
    Blog Entries
    5

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Platypus View Post
    No for-profit institution should have a larger influence on elections than the average citizen.
    Why stop at for-profits? For-profits set up non-profits for various purposes all the time.
    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Then simply ignore them.
    The influence is not on the electorate, it's on the candidates and their parties. It happens in ways that are difficult to detect and to be aware of. That's part and parcel of the objections.
    I may be wrong.

  7. #397
    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
    That definition includes things such as campaign contributions and other activities which are intended to influence the entity being lobbied.
    It could, but it doesn't necessarily. Why are you fighting precise definitions, when you requested them?

    Except in as much that lobbying involves making contributions to campaigns and parties, and various other et ceteras that fall under the umbrella of attempting to directly influence the govt. So, it actually would make a difference in how lobbying was conducted.
    It doesn't matter to the definition.

    Instead of "shutting up alot of people and groups" it would be preventing only certain kinds of "speech" in certain circumstances on the part of artificial person when interacting with the government. The intent being to force the various groups to instead lobby the electorate.
    So?

    Only if speech is in quotation marks so that it indicates the many things which are used to influence members of the govt which are not actually words.
    But they are actually words.

    If they weren't, you wouldnt' be trying to ban them.

    But, why wouldn't it be acknowledged as such?
    We tried the current system. It turns out that it leads to some harmful side effects that are a part of the system [not a part of any entity's actual message, but rather from how the behavior the system encourages]. A change needs to be made.
    How about we simply use our right to discuss and vote? The idea that after 220 years of free political speech, without any restrictions based on content or source, that suddenly the people can't handle speech and need the government to protect them from hearing certain things is just offensive to me. It's no different from any other previous unacceptable justifications people have argued in an attempt to censor. You simply don't like the fact that the people are choosing to vote a certain way based on certain speech, so you want to ban that speech. You declare this to be "harmful side effects" but that doesn't make it so.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  8. #398
    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 influence is not on the electorate,
    Are you talking about donations to candidates or spending on speech?
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  9. #399
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,941
    Blog Entries
    5

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

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    It could, but it doesn't necessarily. Why are you fighting precise definitions, when you requested them?
    Why do you think I am fighting them?

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    But they are actually words. If they weren't, you wouldnt' be trying to ban them.
    Lobbying/attempting to influence members of the govt is not limited exclusively words. Mere words aren't really the issue. I am not sure how re-explain that in another way. I have already pointed out more than once what problems arise from our current system which [among several things] allows small groups to garner exclusive benefits with diffuse costs borne by the many. This is done in a manner that is not open and easily accessible to the electorate. The law makers make decisions based on their own concerns which are being met by various lobbyists. This is not what is intended nor what is desirable for a representative government. I am more than willing to link back to my previous posts which discuss this and a couple of other associated flaws if you like.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    How about we simply use our right to discuss and vote?
    That would be freaking awesome. I'm glad you're starting to come around.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    The idea that after 220 years of free political speech, without any restrictions based on content or source, that suddenly the people can't handle speech and need the government to protect them from hearing certain things is just offensive to me.
    Again and still it's not about keeping people from hearing ideas. It wasn't at the beginning of the thread and it won't be at the end of this thread nor anywhere in between.
    It's totally not about "the people can't handle speech." It's about the people not being allowed to "hear" the "speech". The "speech" takes place between lobbyists and elected officials--the people are being excluded. That's the point where it all starts to get weird.
    You're railing against something other than what I am talking about. I want there to be more of a dialogue with the electorate directly on the part of the various interest groups which are currently able to bypass talking to the electorate because they can cloister with the Congresscritters et al.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    It's no different from any other previous unacceptable justifications people have argued in an attempt to censor. You simply don't like the fact that the people are choosing to vote a certain way based on certain speech, so you want to ban that speech. You declare this to be "harmful side effects" but that doesn't make it so.
    You're missing the point.
    Take the sugar industry example posted earlier. Did the public discuss the issue and form an opinion that they would like to give an extra $5 apiece to the Fanul family? No. The Fanjul family didn't talk to the electorate about it. I suspect that upwards of 90% of the US electorate has no idea about it.
    I am very much for the Fanjul family making their case and being heard. I am so totally for it that I want them to take their case out of the seclusion of only having to discuss it with Congresscritters and have them announce aloud to the nation and let the electorate hear it. If you want to call that censorship, I am not sure what to say.
    The issue is that we currently are not, as you said, "[using] our right to discuss and vote." No one is discussing these things with us.
    Last edited by Simon W. Moon; 11-28-11 at 05:40 PM.
    I may be wrong.

  10. #400
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,941
    Blog Entries
    5

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

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Are you talking about donations to candidates or spending on speech?
    I am all for various groups et al lobbying the electorate.
    I may be wrong.

Page 40 of 45 FirstFirst ... 303839404142 ... 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
  •