• 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!

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

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

  • Yes

    Votes: 53 75.7%

  • No

    Votes: 17 24.3%
  • Total voters
    70
misterman said:
Unbelievable.

You actually think a law banning the payment of lawyers or abortion doctors would be constitutional.

Seriously, think about that.
Click to expand...

That is not what I said nor what I meant... not even close.

I even make a distinction as to why I don't think that... read it again.
 
DiAnna said:
Basically, I voted "Yes", not because I believe an amendment to the constitution is required, but because a law barring corporations and unions from pumping money into elections IS required.
Click to expand...

Since current law already forbids it, why?

Campaign contributions are nothing more than legal bribery
Click to expand...

So you've never given to a campaign? What about the millions of people who have?

I haven't read the rest of the thread... don't have to because I know exactly how I feel about this issue
Click to expand...

That's exactly why you really ought to read the thread.
 
Bodhisattva said:
That is not what I said nor what I meant... not even close.
Click to expand...

Sure you did. You said lawyers can work pro bono and doctors can work for free.

Are you saying you agree those hypothetical laws I cited would indeed be unconstitutional?
 
Thrilla said:
exactly....

I understand the fear and loathing over lobbyists... it's something that is pushed on us nowadays .. " evil lobbyists"... but I do not share in that fear or loathing, I find it absolutely absurd.
lobbyists do a ton of work for me and my issues through my memberships in differing organizations...and I certainly won't throw out the baby with the bathwater.... it's a very good baby, and the bathwater ain't too shabby either.
Click to expand...

All the major groups working for huge changes in campaign finance, ethics, etc. - Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Public Citizen, Common Cause, U.S PIRG, etc. - all employ...lobbyists. To get that other stuff done.
 
Thrilla said:
superficial?.... are you f*cking kidding me?
Click to expand...

Not in the slightest...

it's not my problem you won't entertain anything beyond your talking points dude....
Click to expand...

I know. All you have are talking points.

i'be had this debate hundreds or times...if you want to go at it, fine... just leave the memes and talking points to talking heads and other morons.
Click to expand...

This is why debating you would be a joke... and if you want to call me names at least be a man about it and do it for real. A real man would just take his infraction and shrug it off instead of making sissy veiled insults.

I have centuries worth of precedents and reasoning to back my arguments.. i have the very basis for common law to back my position.. you wanna offer up a debate, go for it, but you had better open your mind to being wrong.
Click to expand...

I am always open to being wrong... I doubt that you have this ability though. Too bad that you are simply unable to blast me with just the tiniest bit of your superior knowledge in the first place, clearly showing how and why my point or comment is nothing more than a "talking point". It should be so easy, yet here we see you, wallowing away with ad homs and other fallicious positions.
 
misterman said:
Sure you did. You said lawyers can work pro bono and doctors can work for free.

Are you saying you agree those hypothetical laws I cited would indeed be unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

"Can" is "must" in your world? WTF? I did not say anything close to your misunderstanding... it is not my fault that you can't comprehend what you read.
 
Bodhisattva said:
"Can" is "must" in your world? WTF? I did not say anything close to your misunderstanding... it is not my fault that you can't comprehend what you read.
Click to expand...

Fine. Explain what you mean then, plainly. Do you believe the hypothetical laws I proposed would be constitutional or not?
 
misterman said:
Fine. Explain what you mean then, plainly. Do you believe the hypothetical laws I proposed would be constitutional or not?
Click to expand...

A law making payment to a person for a service "illegal"? I don't think that anything like that is covered in the Constitution, so it would not be UnConstitutional.

Lobbying is different though... Lobbying is one of the few jobs that leads directly to public policy affecting the nation by influencing a panel, nothing else is close.
 
Thrilla said:
I absolutely adore some special interest groups, and i'd be willing to wager big bucks that you do too.
Click to expand...

Adoring what some groups stand for and wanting them to bribe congress are two different things. A lobbyist is not by definition a bad thing. A lobbyist that can use promises of campaign cash in return for favors, even favors I might benefit from, IS a bad thing.
 
Bodhisattva said:
A law making payment to a person for a service "illegal"? I don't think that anything like that is covered in the Constitution, so it would not be UnConstitutional.
Click to expand...

Awesome!

Lobbying is different though... Lobbying is one of the few jobs that leads directly to public policy affecting the nation by influencing a panel, nothing else is close.
Click to expand...

Um, false. Speech does the same thing. Not that it matters. Lobbying is a right, so spending money on it is a right.

And we were talking about speech anyway, not lobbying. Whatever. No difference.

So you agree that a restriction on spending on a right would be an unconstitutional restriction on that right. Which is obvious. Thanks.
 
misterman said:
Obviously a restriction on spending money on speech is a restriction on speech. It's absurd to say otherwise. That's the whole point of the restriction - to limit speech.

Suppose the government passed a law saying you can't spend money on an abortion. Would that be a restriction on abortion rights? Of course.

How about a law that says you have a right to an attorney - you just can't pay him. Obviously unconstitutional.

Hey, I've got it! A law that says you can't buy a gun. You can own one, you see, just not buy one.

Imagine a law that says you can't buy bumper stickers, signs, paint - or even pay money to register a URL for a website.
Click to expand...

NONE of our rights are absolute.

And judging by the chorus from the right here, some of those restrictions are the bees knees. At least when they are applied to (someone else). Like OWS.

We here many a diatribe to the effect you're not free to speak or assemble whenever you want wherever you want. We got rules around here.

But dare to say you would like to see reasonable limits placed on election investments and yer treadin on the Constitution, man.

Partisanship, in other words.

That and "persuasive messaging". High tech propaganda.

Before you fall back on your defense, do you really want me to post the numbers for ridiculous things people believe? All of which were born in the fevered minds of PR professionals? I love opportunities to innoculate the lurkers.
 
misterman said:
Since current law already forbids it, why?



So you've never given to a campaign? What about the millions of people who have?



That's exactly why you really ought to read the thread.
Click to expand...

Nope, didn't have to. I don't believe private money should be given to ANY campaign. I believe all campaigns should be publicly and equally financed, so that we're not saddled with rich people who buy congressional seats based on their own wealth, or people stuffing their warchests with cash-for-promises from those with deep pockets. I say, no private money for campaigns. Ever. Then maybe we'd get people willing to serve the public instead of themselves.

If you'd read more of my post than the three lines you quoted, you'd know exactly how I feel and why I feel that way.
 
Last edited:
Thrilla said:
please... do elaborate on these easily devised mechanisms.
Click to expand...

Its been done to death here.

To save time, can you think of a single reason a business entity NEEDS to be a PERSON?

A piece of paper makes them so.

That same piece of paper can grant them the exact same protections WITHOUT conferring personhood.
 
misterman said:
Sure you did. You said lawyers can work pro bono and doctors can work for free.

Are you saying you agree those hypothetical laws I cited would indeed be unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

I'M saying that ALL "priest class" occupations should be severely limited.

I don't need to pay someone to speak to God for me.

If the law is so complex it is impossible for me to interact with it on my own, the law is too complex.

I have asthma, had it all my life. I don't need a doctor to tell me I need an inhaler. I DO have to pay a doctor to get a prescription for the SAME DRUG I've been taking for over twenty years.

I shouldn't have to retain a lobbyist to petition congress for a redress of grievances. And lobbyists certainly shouldn't be providing legislators with boilerplate legislation for submission.

Are lobbyists still paying homeless people to stand in line for them at the Capital?
 
What if...? said:
NONE of our rights are absolute.

And judging by the chorus from the right here, some of those restrictions are the bees knees. At least when they are applied to (someone else). Like OWS.

We here many a diatribe to the effect you're not free to speak or assemble whenever you want wherever you want. We got rules around here.

But dare to say you would like to see reasonable limits placed on election investments and yer treadin on the Constitution, man.

Partisanship, in other words.

That and "persuasive messaging". High tech propaganda.

Before you fall back on your defense, do you really want me to post the numbers for ridiculous things people believe? All of which were born in the fevered minds of PR professionals? I love opportunities to innoculate the lurkers.
Click to expand...

"Reasonable limits" are already in place. What YOU want to do is completely shut down a certain group, preclude me from financially supporting a candidacy I want to while forcing me (through taxes) to support candidates I don't. That's not reasonable at all. (I know, I know, I'm being paid for my opinion by the GOP...spare me).
 
DiAnna said:
Nope, didn't have to. I don't believe private money should be given to ANY campaign. I believe all campaigns should be publicly and equally financed, so that we're not saddled with rich people who buy congressional seats based on their own wealth, or people stuffing their warchests with cash-for-promises from those with deep pockets. I say, no private money for campaigns. Ever. Then maybe we'd get people willing to serve the public instead of themselves.

If you'd read more of my post than the three lines you quoted, you'd know exactly how I feel and why I feel that way.
Click to expand...

You can say whatever you want.
 
CriticalThought said:
Would you support an amendment to the United States Constitution which would bar corporations and unions from financially contributing to elections?

Why or why not?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. It is against the first amendment of the constitution. 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.
 
What if...? said:
I shouldn't have to retain a lobbyist to petition congress for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

You don't have to. Write a letter or call them on the phone if you want.

And lobbyists certainly shouldn't be providing legislators with boilerplate legislation for submission.
Click to expand...

Why not? Seriously, does it matter where the ideas come from? Citizens can offer boilerplate too.

Are lobbyists still paying homeless people to stand in line for them at the Capital?
Click to expand...

Homeless? Not unless they've showered.
 
misterman said:
Corporations aren't allowed to contribute to candidates. They can sponsor PACs that do, with voluntarily-collected money from individuals.
Click to expand...

OK, you can twist it around whatever, but they still run ads that can influence elections through there money laundering organizations and PACs. It still really eats at the heart of the core of what or who is really representing Americans.
 
barbarian_style said:
OK but they still run ads that can influence elections through there money laundering organizations and PACs
Click to expand...

They don't need to "launder" that money. They can spend that directly.

It still really eats at the heart of the core of what or who is really representing Americans.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. It's free speech. That's good. You can handle it, and so can the rest of the people. They aren't stupid children who need our supervision on what to hear or see.
 
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, because the former vote in the general interests of all their constituents, while the latter vote primarily for a certain class of their own constituents, often at the expense of the others. If shareholders wanted to create some sort of "union" to collect contributions up to the statutory individual maximum for political purposes, I'd be fine with that too.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
Free For All said:
Just think 600 million tax dollars used to elect someone.... When we could of used that to save kids or give hand outs to the poor.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure a Conservative like Maggie would agree to that and not call it "socialism". You're talking to somebody who thinks "wealth distribution" is the purist definition of socialism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom